I am apparently one of the few people in America, on the right or left, that sees Obama's positioning on Iran as a net positive.
I am not without criticism, so I will begin there. That Obama is using such timid and muddled language is surprising given his reputation for rhetorical wizadry. I agree with many of Obama's critics that he should be carefully yet more deliberately voicing support for the Iranian people's challenge to Ahmadinejad’s election fraud and subsequent thuggish crackdown. In this respect Obama is lagging behind the leaders of many other countries, especially those in the European Union, and it is painful to watch. So, in his role as the leader of the free world (and as a sort of god, if you buy that), he has been disappointing.
I would prefer Obama to have a much stronger stance against the violence that is occurring, and speak in general yet emphatic language that America is committed to allowing people to choose their own government, and that the will of the people must be honored by way of a legitimate election process, and the voice of the people should be respected. Regardless of his "realistic" assessment of the negligible differences between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, it is wholly irrelevant at this point, and Obama should be supporting the principles of democracy and self-determination, in whatever country it may arise.
That said, as President of the United States, I welcome his restraint. If there is anything that I truly hope that Obama changes, it is that the President of the United States can be a leader of the free world while refraining from being the world's bully. Specificallu in the Middle East, in a region embroiled in religious, political, and cultural struggle against Israel and the West, the US has for far too long bumbled in overly interventionist policies, including imposing embargoes, issuing threats, supporting overthrows and coups, and use of military force. In large part as a result of these interventions, America has become the main enemy of the extremist Muslim world, and standing behind a specific candidate, or even movement, can become yet another in a long line of US policy failures. I see Obama as carefully weighing the long-term potential consequences against the short term political rewards, and I much prefer that to any "maverick" that would be shooting from the hip.
My praise and criticism go hand in hand. If America is to be the shining example that it can be for liberty and democracy, it must both support others who seek to emulate it in forming a government of the people, while allowing them to do it without our interference. I believe it possible, indeed preferable, to balance Reagan-esque speech in support of the democratic spirit everywhere while "avoiding foreign entanglements", seeking "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations" and abstaining from going "abroad in search of monsters to destroy." (The quoted phrases are from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams, respectively.) And if I can't have both, I prefer perceived weakness to arrogance any day, or as another President was fond of saying, let us "speak softly and carry a big stick."
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The spiritual and the temporal are different spheres which ought not to be confused. -FA Hayek
Justus' shared items
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(180)
-
▼
June
(17)
- Incentives vs. Virtue
- Objectivism vs. Christian Virtue Ethics, aka "Well...
- Big Government Capitalism
- Obama on Iran
- Hayek Was Not a Conservative
- Urgency and Action: Stimulus Edition
- Offseason Reflection: College Football
- Channeling Marx
- Economics, Politics, and the revenge of B.A. Barac...
- Power to the Parents
- Environmentalism, Nature, and Virtue
- Now We're Talking
- Nature's Harmony
- Litigation and ROI
- Religous Tolerance and Baptist History
- Only With a 10 Foot Pole
- You Know You're Crazy When... Part 1: Norman Mailer
-
▼
June
(17)
50 comments:
Let me first say, that I completely agree that we should stay out of any physical involvement in Iran. To stick our noses in that situation would be a huge mistake.
But it sounds like you should change the last quote to "speak softly and carry no stick"
How would you propose that Obama take a stronger stance against the violence? If all he does is speak against it, I hardly think Iran will care. Likewise, what does it matter if America says "we support a leader elected by democracy", but has no interest in getting involved. It then just becomes more of the wizardy and rhetoric you mention.
Again, I am not advocating we get involved with the situation in any way, but who really cares what we think and say if that is as far as it goes?
We shouldn't and can't be the world's police force, but could we say that unless we are going to get involved we should just keep our mouths shut? We certainly have plenty of issues to resolve at home.
Another thought that often comes to my mind, and one that I don't have an answer to is when do we get involved? Our general practice in my opinion should be one of restraint and minding our business, but there do come times when it is irresponsible not to get involved. The easy example here is the holocaust. How do you know when violence outside of your country becomes an issue that requires you step in? Any thoughts? I suppose I had two different issues here, but they do seem to be related.
Anon - You are correct (or at least we agree) on many levels.
First, I either should not have used the last quote or clarified that it should be seen as a more general statement. We should not be picking up any sticks with respect to Iran.
On the larger point you made about keeping our mouths shut unless we are going to get involved, that is tough. In theory, I completely agree. In practice, after America's history of direct or indirect involvement in just about every sizable foreign policy issue in the last 60+ years, it would be next to impossible for any President to withdraw completely from the rhetorical debate.
As much as Charles Barkley would prefer athletes not to be role models to youth, and as much as we would like America and its leaders not to be role models to the rest of the world, that's pretty much part of the deal. America is THE democratic superpower, with the moniker of "Leader of the Free World" given to our President.
As for "just war" reasons for taking preemptive or offensive military action, that is certainly a good one for another post.
Quoting: "In large part as a result of these interventions, America has become the main enemy of the extremist Muslim world...."
The attitude reflected in that excerpt and elsewhere seems very dangerous in understating the ambitions of our enemies. In their rhetoric and actions, they express the desire to impose Islamic rule across the globe, and our supporting a Jewish state in their neighborhood is an affront. We don't need to elevate the United States as the bad guy when they are so direct in explaining alternative motivations.
I won't pretend to know what the right course is, but I am increasingly fearful that President Obama has been rather incoherent so far because:
1) He does not believe that the US has the moral standing to do anything (something Justus hints at as well); and
2) The current Iranian regime is his only negotiating leverage with Israel (a place, I might add, where he has shown no reluctance to "meddle" so far).
I disagree with #1 and think #2 is fool-hardy, even if he gives the region a generous sprinkling of the Obama pixie dust. Most of all, I hope freedom wins the day.
JB, your second point is exactly correct, and one that I wanted to note. Overall, Obama's approach is inconsistent.
John, I just can't see the world as clearly black & white as you. The good guys make serious mistakes sometimes, and the bad guys can be guilty of using extremist religious positions as a cover for attainable political goals.
-Justus, I understood that you don't think we should take up big stick for Iran, but I was trying to broaden the conversation to see when you do think we should pick up the stick. It appeared that you may not think there is an appropriate time. As you said, maybe a good post for another day.
-While it may be difficult for a president to withdraw from the political debate afterr 60 years, if it is in line with his policy, it shouldn't be a problem. There may be a need to respond to questions, but no need to proactively give a voice on an issue that we don't intend to involve ourselves.
-I'm not so sure America is considered "Leader of the Free World" outside of the U. S. I do not know, but would find it interesting to see how many statements from other countries refer to use as such. I wonder if that is not a self anointed position.
-If we only speak when we mean it, and our actions match our rhetoric, then I would imagine that we would be respected if not as a role model, at least as a country of solid principles and integrity. Our problem would be that we change those principles every 2-4 years for election time.
I think we are on the same page here for the most part.
You don't need to see the world in black and white to agree with my view. My argument is simply that you seem intent on rationalizing the behavior of Iran and others in the Middle East toward us, and that your rationalizations downplay their statements and actions. If they say they want create an Islamic world order or destroy Israel and will kill those who stand in their way, then I will take them at their word. Iran has shown no inkling that it harbors other ambitions and the stern rhetoric is a cover.
Until the people of Iran want liberty and democracy more than the current regime wants to crush it, it doesn't make one hill of beans what anyone not directly involved in the situation has to say on the matter. And that includes the POTUS.
Having said that, I think the Iranian people are far wiser that we or their leaders give them credit for being. If they truly want liberty and freedom, they know how to get it - the question is how badly do they want it? It doesn't matter how badly we may want it for them.
While I don't disagree with the good doctor's comment, I think it is possible to want something badly, but not have the resources to obtain it. The person who is victorious in a fight, may not be the one who wants it most. Sometimes they are just a better fighter.
Unless you are Tim Tebow, in which case you simultaneously posses both the greatest desire and unmatched skills. And then your university will memorialize your greatness before you graduate.
I think John also makes a valid point. I don't think that we can blame the hatred of countries soley on our involvement in middle eastern affairs. (do you like how I stretched your quote there, Justus). I think a lot of it would have to do with our protection of Israel, and if that is the cause, then I have no problem with it.
Certainly this issue is much deeper than one or two things, but I think that plays a part.
Anon, watch yourself and the comments regarding Jean Shorts Jesus? I am all for free speech, but even I have my limits as to what will be allowed on this blog.
Anon (the one making reference to Tim Tebow): You're right that resources matter when it comes to a fight. Therefore the only way for the Iranians to win is to refuse to fight. Peaceful civil disobedience ultimately wins always, especially when the one side possesses all or most of the violent resources (history has proven this out time and time again: Warsaw, East Berlin, Prague, Johannesburg, Bombay, Montgomery, and Greensboro are just a few examples).
The Iranians, with their (mostly) peaceful protests, appear to have figured this out also. It now becomes a question of whether the Iranians possess the fierce, obstinate persistence necessary to achieve the liberty they seek.
It's amazing how much Mel Gibson favors Tim Tebow in Braveheart. Seriously - even the eye black.
I have put on the Rosen colored glasses, and agree with you.
...if they would only let Tebow carry a broadsword on the field.
Ok, so much to comment on, so little time.
Let me just add my two cents.
First off, I think the best thing to do when dealing with a bully (and I think the clear bully here is the one talking of wiping Israel off the map, and killing the "great satan" etc.; not the one country that clearly, at least most of the time, stands for freedom and individual rights) is to walk right up too him and punch him directly in the nose.
So I would phrase the last quote "speak loudly, yet wisely, and carry a large nuclear weapon".
Also, as far as treating Abemni...oh whatever, as a legitimate world leader, by doing things such as...hmmm..lets see...negotiating with him, trivializes truly freely elected officials on the world stage, legitimizes him as a world leader, and gives him much fodder for his cannon. (Which by the way is pointed at Israel...our ALLY!!)
I think Obama is shamefully deafening in his largly silent stand on this issue. I think this is indicitive of his overarching stance on middle eastern politics. That is.....we are very very "sorry" in reference to the radical muslims and other regimes that userp power on a daily basis. I hope that acting in our own soverign and our allies best interests haven't hurt your feelings....and so on...
Wimpy... I would rather have a "shoot from the hip" cowboy mentality personally.
well, that stinks. I left a brilliant post yesterday that was equal parts brilliance and hilarity with a dash of magnificence, but apparently did not click submit. At this point I don't feel like recreating the masterpiece, so you'll have to take my word for it.
Let's all play a new game today during President Obama's press conference...every time he tries to square the circle of making what I predict will be TODAY a very forceful statement of support for the protesters seem consistent with his heretofore milquetoast declarations by saying "As I have repeatedly stated" or "As I said before" or other some such nonsense, everyone takes a drink.
One more thought - despite my uncertainty of what the proper US response to all this is, I do think it's disgusting that we are still inviting Iranian diplomats to our July 4 celebrations around the world. Absolutely disgusting. And dripping with irony, no?
Question to all:
What if Obama's strategy works? Let us suppose that his strategy works and he gets Iran to dismantle nuclear ambitions. Will you change your mind about which strategy works best?
(This is Jose A. Donis, humanities college professor in Miami)
Sure, Jose, anyone arguing in good faith ought to reconsider if President Obama's strategy succeeds, assuming that by "strategy" you mean using dialogue and pixie dust to convince the current regime to cease its nuclear activity. (I kid. I kid because I love.) Of course, this is something the current regime as recently as a few weeks ago declared off the table and not open for discussion. How does your question relate to his response to the current protests?
Look, if I were to write the post as a cynic (and perhaps more realistically) I would posit that Obama prefers the devil he knows to the devil he doesn't. Selfishly, he has put negotiating with Iran on his to-do list, and stiking with the established powers may make him accomplishing this goal easier.
Jason, you are right, his approach with respect to Iran is inconsistent with his position with Israel. I did not know he had invited Iranian ambassadors to July 4 celebrations - that is both embarrassing and amusingly ironic.
Obama has certainly shown a proclivity to say one thing and do or mean another (see his sermons on fiscal responsibility). He probably will attempt to "square the circle" and since the only alcoholic beverage is a bottle of sweet tea vodka in the freezer, I may not be unconscious by 12:40.
Lumbee and JB, you make a good points, in that I don't want to see the President falling all over himself to apologize to anyone, much less Islamic theocracies.
While I like Dr. RosenRosen's rhetoric perhaps the best of all, and agree that (mostly) peaceful resistance can bring the most lasting and fundamental change possible. The reality is, might often makes right, even if it is only temporary.
In the end, I fundamentally disagree with the "shoot from the hip" neocons. My humble opinion is that the only consent can give sovereignty power, not coercion. God is sovereign over all, but his power is made available to those that consent to it. As powerful as God is, he does not impose his sovereignty through coercion. This spiritual truth colors my worldview, and I don't think government can legitimately "impose" its sovereignty through coercion.
Sorry for the awful grammar and spelling, I will go get some coffee to wake up and promise to proofread in the future.
I, too, admire Dr. RosenRosen's rhetoric. It is to be expected - he gets paid to practice, after all. ;-) I can't help but wonder what Bonhoeffer would make of it, though. Such a difficult topic, this.
As for "shoot from the hip" neocons [terrible qualifier, by the way], there's probably a little more coherence and principle at work than Justus seems to want to give credit for or Lumbee might grasp. This Kagan essay would be a fun topic for discussion in another post, if only for me to demonstrate yet again how little I know about history and the world in general.
Lastly, is it just me or is it becoming easier to identify the anonymous commenters around here than it is the pseudonymous ones? "Anon" I'm pretty sure I know. "Lumbee" - there's got to be a story there (unless it's really your name, in which case, umm, sorry.)
Apparently by removing my anonymity, I have become anonymous. Although I am not the only poster as anonymous, I did use it earlier on this post. I have changed my name to reflect the source of much of my inspiration - feeble though it may be.
JB,
There is a point to my question. But I have to wait to see what others say. I'll chime in when more people post.
The question remains: REGARDLESS OF THE MEANS by which achieving particular goals, would you change your mind about the effectiveness of Obama's strategy if it works?
JB says yes he will reconsider if the strategy succeeds. (Although it may be funny--yes, I did get a chuckle--let's remain honest and refrain from stating humorous statements like "uses pixie dust." Obama, or anyone for that matter, never said pixie dust would be used.)
Now don't move the goalposts on me, Jose. Your original question did not disregard the means employed.
Professor,
I don't know if Obama deserves much credit or blame at this point in terms of the protests in Iran, most people are just divided in the vision they have for the role of POTUS and what Obama should or should not be saying about the Iranian protests. But at the end of the day, words are just words. I know that is not your question, though.
I haven't seen anything coherent enough to be called a strategy as to how Obama plans to win over the hearts and minds of Iran to re-open what they view as a closed debate. I agree with JB that in order to get Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions, Obama would have to work some serious magic, whether or not he has access to pixie dust, as not only Ahmadinejad, but most Iranian leaders and the majority of Iranian voters support a nuclear Iran.
I would ask how you would measure the success of Obama policies toward Iran. My understanding is that even if the US did nothing to impede Iran's nuclear program, it would take several years for Iran to develop any power plants, and longer still to develop weaponry. It will be difficult to sell anything short of totally abandoning their research and surrendering/destroying all materials during Obama's Presidency as a success.
If Obama achieved that level of success in Iran, then he would earn a tremendous amount of respect in terms of foreign policy, and I would give him the benefit of the doubt on other foreign policy matters, whatever his means. Bottom line, however, is that Obama remains largely unproven, and inconsistent in his record so far. I happen to like a non-interventionist approach in general, so I lean towards him on Iran, but against him with respect to the Israel.
Maybe I'm missing something, but perhaps Justus and JB can clarify how President Obama has intervened in Israel. I am being honest when when I say I'm just not sure I understand the point of view. Please help.
If we're talking about the the speech in Cairo, my reading was that the Obama administration will no longer follow the trajectory of prior administrations in offering unquestioning support for Israeli policies, particularly with regard to settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. I don't see how that qualifies as interventionist, nor inconsistent with the current posture toward Iran. I also don't think I misread his speech, but perhaps y'all can help me out.
Many thanks.
Unless you count publicly demanding a halt to all settlements (at least twice), butchering the history in a manner I thought only I was capable of, or singling out Israel in a comprehensive speech as the only country in the region deserving of rebuke from a sitting US president, then I'd have to concede the point to his defenders.
JB,
OK, no more moving of any goalposts. Let's go with this: You disagree with his means by which to deal with Iran (you have said that in two entries above). So then would you end up agreeing with his strategy if it achieves the goal that you most prefer?
Justus,
That's a good point you make, he HAS NOT proven anything yet. But I didn't read (or misread) your answer of my question. Would you agree with his strategy if it achieves the goal you most prefer?
Jose, I will answer your question that with the information provided - "would I agree with the strategy if it achieves the goal" - I will answer yes. I am also assuming that you have set me up to say this for your next point. Nicely done, and I look forward to your reply.
Professor,
Please remember, that on the specific issue of Obama's rhetoric regarding the Iranian protesters, I sided with Obama overall.
But to answer your question on purely philosophical grounds, the answer is no. Ends do not in and of themselves justify the means. Law, character (or virtue) and tradition (for lack of a better word) also matter.
On the subject of Israel, I think that Rosen and JB are both correct. At this point, the administration has done nothing interventionist towards any country. So far it has all just been talk and rhetoric, but talk that is likely positioning for later action. I wouldn't say that Obama has been inconsistent. I would say that he is clearly making a shift to provide less support to Israel and more support to the Arab nations. Whether you agree with that or not may be a subject for another debate.
Jose, to be clear, what I have said or intimated is:
(1) I am not sure what President Obama should be doing vis a vis the current situation in Iran;
(2) I fear his confidence in his rhetorical ability (or Jedi powers or something) to convince the current regime to give up its nuclear program will prove about as warranted as putting faith in sprinkling pixie dust on them;
(3) he has not shown the same restraint with respect to Israel that he has been showing with Iran;
(4)it's disgusting and ironic that we have invited Iranian diplomats to July 4 celebrations;
(5) Lumbee is a good pseudonym;
(6)not all means would be acceptable for achieving a nuclear-free Iran. For example, if we nuked Iran tomorrow, we'd certainly rid the world of Iranian nuclear weapons, but I doubt most of us would find that acceptable (I'm still not sure about that RosenRosen guy).
I'm with Loathsome - enough with the kabuki dance! Go ahead and cream us. Just don't tell us you think the protests ARE somehow a part of his strategy.
Be careful, the good professor is setting a trap.
JB, Lumbee is not a pseudonym, nor is it my name. My name is Josh and the Lumbee are an Indian tribe out of North Carolina that I happen to be a member of.
I must comment on your dig at my intellectual status, seems diagnostic of both your lack of use of "principle" and your "coherence" of my words. Hope that satisfies your restless heart oh Obi Wan!
That being said, I think we miss the point in this whole debate.
Albeit, this position of noninterference by Obama and others seems indicitive of his entire middle eastern policy, especially in light of his actions in dealing with Israel. But, I digress....
You see Ahmidenijad is a madman. He is also a playground bully. These two combined spell trouble.
What we are dealing with here is a man that beleives he is the forerunner to some Islamic spiritual "messiah" called the 12th Imam. (Now let me just go on the record as saying that I am a Christian, and beleive in the true Messiah and God, Jesus Christ!) He even mentions this idiotic, evil, thought process at one of the UN meetings. Ahmedinejad beleives that in order for this 12th Imam to come, there must be world wide chaos.
What better way to facilitate that than with a nuclear weapon?
Ahmed thinks that he is responsible for bringing about this world wide chaos. And in doing this, he paves the path for his "messiah".
You can read more on this by reading "Armageddon Oil and the Middle East Crisis: What the Bible Says About the Future of the Middle East and the End of Western Civilization" by John F. Walvoord.
This "ivory tower" philosophical, noninterventionist mindset won't mean a thing when the rubber meets the road and 100,000+ are vaporized by a terrorist attack on Israel or a national interest to the USA, using a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb.
You see, philosophy does meet reality, when it gets put into play. Does our philosophy work in reality?
In order to get a real picture of who we are dealing with and why, I urge you to read the book of Joshua in the old testament. What was his major mistake?
Now, that is where the rubber meets the road!
Lumbee, dude! I am going to have to beg your forgiveness for my ignorance of the Lumbee tribe. I figured there was a story there. It's a good one and it makes your pseudonym even better (especially compared to a semi-obscure pop culture reference, initials or "Anon", for Pete's sake). I'm not sure where I went wrong on the other offense as I agree with most of what you have posted, but I'm open to your feedback. Feel free to email me here and we can chat offline. Would be great to make your acquaintance.
On another note, what time does the Professor get off work? I'm on pins and needles over here.
No, no--there will be no creaming. But I am approaching this from a philosophical viewpoint. A viewpoint that definitely is in direct relation to reality.
Some people may agree that if something works, then it must be good. That's pragmatism, in a sense. Others, such as Justus' answer above, will hold on to their philosophical viewpoints no matter what the result is of a different and opposing tactic.
I simply wanted to see, more or less, where everyone in this discussion forum stood on this.
My viewpoint: In essence, appeasing to any murderer, criminal, thief, or what have you, will result in the good being destroyed. There can be no such good coming out of giving Kim Jong Il (spelling?) gifts and hope that he refrains from obtaining nuclear power. There can be no such good coming out of giving a seat on the U.N. for the Iranians to engage with the rest of the world in the hopes that A-jad becomes ultimately good. A criminal NEEDS the good to in order to be a criminal, the good DOES NOT need the bad to be good. Any inch one gives to the bad, results in the bad destroying the good.
Our national self-interest should be that the U.S. cannot engage with Iran except to annihilate it from this world. We destroy the bad so that we can continue upholding man's life as the ultimate value--not as a subservient to the state or religion. And I detest any answer that goes something like, "what is good for you may not be good for another." So please do not attempt to explain that one.
My thoughts are not original, they are taken from Ayn Rand's Objectivism. By the way, Lumbee and I are good friends. And if anyone gets out of hand with him, I will let the "burrito" in me come out and I'll shank someone like at a San Quentin prison. Just kidding, guys!
Holy crap this is the most incredible round of posting yet (on so many levels).
Professor and Lumbee, welcome to the circle. Thanks for bringing your insight. Lumbee, I thought you might have connections to the Lumberton area - I myself beat a path from Wilmington to Charlotte for 2 years right down US 74, and I worked with many folks from that Lumberton and surrounding communities. I have much respect for the good people of that area.
And JB, I thought my choice of Dr. RosenRosen was sublime. I guess not... I am... humbled.
My good Dr.
I myself to not, nor have I ever lived in Lumberton. But, alas, my father is from Pembroke, which is right next to Lumberton.
I would love to chat about the Lumbee with you at any time. But, being computer stupid, I don't know how to put a link on here with my email address. So if you could do so.
You know.
JB...I will contact you. Hope you enjoyed the Professor's response so far. Don't get him started!
Rosen, I was also cut deeply by JB's comment about pop culture references. I for one was greatly inspired by your reference, and was determined to come up with a handle just as good. I have failed. I still give you mad props.
So we now see where Professor was heading.
Professor, I have a couple of questions for you. One is philisophical and the other is applicational. If I understand your position correctly you are stating that the pursuit must be for the good, and the bad must be eliminated. That which is good can not compromise or else it will become bad. Please correct any misunderstanding here.
Question 1 - applicational: You have not directly said what you think should be done in the specific case of Iran (the initial subject of the blog). From reading your above post and taking the quote "U.S. cannot engage with Iran except to annihilate it from this world", that leaves two options. The U. S. should either not engage, or should annihilate Iran. Which do you support?
Question 2 - Philisophical: The promotion, application, and advancement of good appears to be key to Objectivism. If this is the case, I believe you must define good. How is one to know what is good and what is bad. To avoid crossing that line of compromise there has to be a standard or an understanding of what good is or else how do we pursue it?
This is not a "good for one, good for another" argument. That statement would imply there is no absolute good which would then lead to anarchy with no guidelines or ideals to govern behavior and interaction. From what I take in your comments, there is a clear and universal good. My question is what is it, how do you define it, and how do we apply it.
Ahh, the Professor is an Objectivist. Well, perhaps I'll post my criticisms of that philosophy at another time (I have already given some in past posts), but I think we have reached an impasse. If I see the world through a spiritual lens, and the professor does not, then there is little hope for agreement.
Loathsome: My answer will reflect Objectivist's position on this matter. Justus, there is a note down below for you.
Loathsome, man's only way to survive in this world is to use one's mind. As has been proven for a long time (you may interpret that as 1.3 million years or 5769 years), humans cannot depend solely on their gut instinct, like animals can. Humans must engage the mind at some point in order to know the world around him and know how to survive, live, and achieve goals in this world. When one's mind stagnates, this may lead to his destruction. Or if one chooses not to think, this may lead his destruction. In a nutshell, if you stop using your mind, you will eventually die.
In a world of such highly civilized social networks--whether friendly, romantic, professional, or political--one must honor one's own life as the highest moral order. That is, YOU must uphold YOUR OWN life as the highest value. This means that NO ONE can make you their slave, and YOU CANNOT make anyone YOUR SLAVE. But what if you love someone so much that you would rather die than see your loved one die? This is just fine! Ask yourself: Is anyone making anyone else a SLAVE to another? Clearly, this is consensual.
If someone forces another person into slavery of ANY KIND (physical or intellectual), then the enforcer is acting as the slave's destroyer. If a government says that YOU must work a particular job position for the state, then the government is acting as your destroyer. (And if you don't think this can happen, I have 22 cousins and 7 aunts/uncles living in Cuba who will tell you differently!) Anyone or anything that does not ALLOW you to think and use your mind and body as you wish, and against your will, then that is defined as the evil.
(Now I apply this to reality)
In this country, we have INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (well, sort of, but that's another discussion forum altogether). In Iran, there is no such thing as individual rights. The people's rights are sanctioned by the government, the Supreme Leader, and the Koran. All must submit their mind and body to something else. The evil government NEEDS the good of the people in order to survive--they just keep stealing from them. It also needs the GOOD of Israel and U.S. in order to remain evil--the good countries keep appeasing to Iran by flowering them with gifts and U. N. seats in order to make them feel better. Iran is the destroyer of the Good (U. S. and Israel). The GOOD of the people in Iran DOES NOT need the government to remain GOOD. The U. S. and Israel do not need the evil Iranian government to be good.
I hope you now see what is good and what is bad. It is NOT relative, it is only consistent with truth, hence reality.
Justus: Clearly I have different metaphysical/epistemological/ethical views than your religious views--although not entirely. I do not wish to engage in discussions about God, however, I will discuss Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics with you if you'd like (that goes for everyone else on here too). Lumbee teaches me all that I want and need to know about Christianity. And two Rabbis in Miami teach me about Judaism. My colleague at the college is Muslim and has invited me to speak with his priest about Islam. So, as you can see, I'm well taken care of, :)
I only seek religious knowledge for educational/instructional purposes, not spiritual.
Loathsome, my apologies. I forgot to address the first question you posed. My bad.
Yes, I believe there are only two options: either the U. S. does not engage at all, or they should annihilate Iran.
No engagement:
The U. S. does not have any "duty" to engage with Iran politically or otherwise. The U.S. should not be forced or coerced in doing so. We should offer the conditions under which we will talk to Iran and that's that. If they do not abide by those conditions, then we walk away (worked beautifully for Reagan when dealing with USSR).
Annihilation:
It is in the US's national self interest to annihilate all governments that are evil--this includes Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea. This does not mean that WE HAVE TO do it, but if we want to win this so-called war on terror, then we should have started with Iran, not Iraq (Afghanistan is a good war, since it was their country that harbors Usama Bin Laden).
However, I also believe that in attacking any country that attacked us or harbors terrorists, then we should destroy any and all that is the evil and leave. We don't paint schools, we don't work on their political and financial infrastructure, we don't help them with their military, and we surely don't help them get back on their feet. You attack US, then WE destroy YOU, PERIOD!!!
Professor,
As all Christians hold the same set of opinions and beliefs, Lumbee can speak for me on religious/spiritual matters moving forward. ;-)
I'll leave the philosophy of Objectevism for another time. Suffice it to say that I see it as a very black and white unemotional approach, much like your foreign policy prescription. I say that with equal parts compliment and criticism.
Oh, Justus,
I love the backhand of your last statement.
I do, for the record mostly agree with the professor's foreign policy stance. However, we obviously disagree on spiritual things.
Let me also say, I do not even come close to thinking I speak for all Christians, I only give the professor my views.
He has a very inquisitive mind and loves to debate, I look forward to more lively discussions.
Objectivism, eh? Can't claim any more familiarity than your average righty (after all, I read Atlas Shrugged almost 20 years ago now - uggh), but I know enough to know I'm not on board.
Incidentally, Justus, this morning I stumbled across this Libertarian Republican post asking whither the Libertarians on Iran. Gratuitous video from the Toastmaster General Mike Huckabee - check. Ayn Rand reference - check. Delicious.
Professor, I have intentions to post a more lengthy contribution to your response, but to this point have not had time. There are points where we agree, and points where we don't. Most of the areas we disagree stem from the basis of our philosophy.
Our differences will come from the fact that you do not seek spiritual knowledge, whereas my world view is very much based on my spiritual beliefs. There are some other points that I hope to take some time to discuss, but if I do not, or if it is a while, I hope you will continue to join us on these posts. I enjoy your insights and opinons.
And Jose, in case you didn't know, this is T. J., so you and I have had some conversations on this topic before. I look forward to more.
JB, even Rush Limbaugh plugs his occasional tribute to Ms. Rand, as does Ron Paul. But they all disagree with her in her having no faith in God.
TJ, I will not discuss any matters concerning the evidence of God or His acts. There is nothing to discuss, I see things differently than you do (and others on this thread). I can't change your mind, and none of you will change mine. But we could have discussions about Objectivist and Christian ethics, or politics, or interpretations of Christianity and Objectivism. Just know that when we get to a point at which we both disagree, I will point it out like this, "I'm right, you're wrong." (No, I'm just kidding guys.) I'll say something like, "we both disagree on this point. Let's move on to another topic." There is no love lost, there is nothing personal harbored, we simply move on like friends who like the same girl, but only one of us can date her.
Is that cool guys? Like I said, I only trust Lumbee in my understanding and learning of the Christian faith--other than Lumbee, it would have to be Dr. Thaddeus Boyle (spelling?), the father not Junior (sorry, TJ).
(Please delete this message, Justus, if writing actual people's names is inappropriate.)
Professor, I believe you and I are in agreement. There are a lot of things we can discuss, but in many cases we will reach a point where we will have to agree to disagree. No hard feelings, nothing personal, we'll just move on to the next topic.
I look forward to hearing your opinion on many different subjects including financial, political, and philosophical, and hope you enjoy chatting with us as well.
Post a Comment