About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 3:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Where in Rand’s published writings does it say that we were wrong to get involved in WWII?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara (again):

"I will not discuss these issues or any others with Justin Raimondo, but I will urge Soloists to read the material at antiwar.com."

Good for you for not getting into a pissing contest with him. You of all people do not need to stoop. A Brazilian author I like, Nuno Cobra, stated that you should avoid engaging in a fight with those you despise. Thus you will avoid equalling yourself to that which you repudiate.

Raimondo's posts state that your are avoiding essential facts and imply that Solo posters are blind hero worshipers. His accusation that you post strong views based on getting information second-hand is particularly rankling to people like myself who know your work. You do not have to be an investigative journalist specializing in USA foreign policy issues to arrive at an informed opinion on what is going on.

I have avoided commenting too much on the war in Iraq. War brings so many complications and abuses that I particularly feel that I am before the cesspool of the human spirit. However, one issue cuts through it all when you get down to humans hurling death down on other humans (including me), and you can no longer stay out of it: America is right and they are wrong - particularly as America professes support for individual rights and ends up implementing them. We are not the ones claiming that Islam is the Great Satan that must be destroyed by fire.

Well, maybe not all of us... Things I have read from the Peikoff camp on this have really disappointed me Objectivism-wise. Lumping your own professed statements, and Kelley's, with ARI's stance is simply to show a wish to spark controversy, nothing more. I will not stand by idly and watch you be treated as just one more attention-getting dragon for Raimondo to try to slay in order to make a better name for himself.

Barbara, I and others know who you are. Your achievements speak for themselves. I personally am a heroine worshipper of yours - but not blind. You actively participated in the founding of Objectivism. You wrote a groundbreaking biography that spawned a major motion picture, both of which will be read and seen long after you are gone. And that is just for starters. Also, I am sure that there will be many, many works written based on you and your works.

Intellectually, you have helped identify and forge a moral foundation that now impedes America from doing what most countries do when they invade other countries - wholesale slaughter and plunder. Hell, they had an election in Iraq within a couple of years after being completely trounced. Since when has the world seen something like that? When I trace the philosophical roots of this unheard-of marvelous event, I see you standing there right beside Ayn Rand.

To speculate on the future, my opinion is that centuries from now your name will still be known and your work studied. Justin Raimondo will be lucky to be a short footnote to some minor issue or other.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/06, 3:25pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/07, 1:24am)


Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was just alerted today to the existence of this web site and will check out the contents.  (It seems that I know some people who post here.)

Justin Raimondo is doing his level best to cover his tracks, but it isn't working.  He calls Iraqi police recruits "traitors" and then later tries to cover himself when called on it by responding, "I didn't explicitly say that they should be killed," although he also insists that there "must be some reason" why the "Iraqis" are killing so many of them.  (No chance that it would be that evil terrorists are intimidating the vast majority of the population, of course.)  So he can write inflammatory and rage-filled denunciations of Iraqi police and soldiers as "Quislings" and "traitors," suggest that the "Iraqis" are killing them, and then insist that only the explicit words "Kill all of the Iraqi police and soldiers" would count as a call for their killing.  As Mr. Raimondo would put it in his campy style: puh-leaze.

Furthermore, the lewrockwell.com writer who posts "toasts" to the defeat of the U.S. under pictures of burned-out tanks (does he not know that people die when you blow up a tank?) and the antiwar.com editor who writes glowingly of "the Iraqi resistance" and the others are smart enough not to write sentences such as "I favor killing American soldiers," but there is little doubt about the meaning of what they do write. 

Mr. Raimondo, whose career has ranged from campaign worker for protectionist/nationalist candidate Patrick Buchanan to yellow "journalist" (with some much more unsavory "career moves" in between), makes a point of praising the work of the "British Helsinki Human Rights Group," a really bizarre group of shills for Eastern European post-Soviet dictators.  Read through their web site (their "reports" are regularly posted at antiwar.com and they are praised by Lew Rockwell) and also read Raimondo's sickening mockery of Viktor Yushchenko's poisoning (do you still insist that it was bad sushi, Mr. Raimondo?), much of which relies on  BHHRG smears.  The smearing of Viktor Yushchenko by Raimondo and the others at lewrockwell.com and at antiwar.com was inexcusable.

It's distasteful, but I will address the tasteless use of explicit sexual imagery by Mr. Raimondo.  He denies having posted anonymous remarks across my web site in the inimitable Raimondo style (accusing me of having sex with Albanian terrorists when I was in Albania and of being motivated by sexual attraction to Viktor Yushchenko, all of which I removed from my web site for aesthetic reasons), but then slipped and revealed himself again on the "Liberty and Power" blog, when I wrote "I apologize to other readers of this forum for having attracted the attentions of a bottom feeder such as Raimondo" -- his response (http://hnn.us/comments/52567.html ) was "As for me being a "bottom" -- now there's where you're really wrong...."  Ugh.  What a repulsive approach.

I have chronicled the ugly racial collectivism, the vicious anti-Americanism, the creepy Confederate Revivalism, the connections to anti-Semites and racists, and the like in a series of posts at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php.  I invite people to make up their own minds. 

Having gotten that off my chest, I will spend some time navigating your site to see what I can learn.  It seems to be full of interesting items. 


Post 23

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 6:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom, thank you for your post.

I noticed that you take Prof. Hans Herman-Hoppe to task in a post on your blog. You might be interested in contributing to our discussion here: http://www.solohq.com/cgi-bin/SHQ/SHQ_FirstUnread.cgi?Function=FirstUnread&Board=2&Thread=1031

Now, back to shoveling the manure Raimondo has spread all over our forums.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for this important post, Alec.

And now that he's joined the discussion, let me commend Tom Palmer for his thorough demolition of the scumbags Justin Raimondo and Lew Rockwell, and the more obscure but equally scummy cultist associates.

I'm relieved to hear other voices raised against them, as I've been going after these creeps for some time on my own blog, especially in my posts on "Anarchism vs. Limited Government, " and on "Foreign Policy and National Defense" (archived in the table of contents. I invite readers to peruse the relevant entries.).

As to whether these creeps are merely “anti-war,” or really “anti-American”: they try to mask their true feelings, but sometimes the mask slips. For instance, on the left margin of the Antiwar.com home page, we find a link labeled “Antiwar.com, A Division of the Randolph Bourne Institute.” Following that link, then scrolling down to the last paragraph, we find this listed under RBI’s list of projects:

Finally, the RBI is initiating a new kind of effort: a Cultural Critique, targeted initially at American culture and its relationship to war. The first offering will be a photographic essay inspired by the on-line story "Toy Soldier Commandeers Barbie Dream House". [boldface in original]


So Raimondo’s parent group and funding source is specifically targeting not merely “war” itself, but specifically “American culture and its relationship to war.”

Still not convinced? Okay, for those with sufficient patience, strong stomachs and a few spare hours to devote to the necessary reading, please check out the following entries from Tom Palmer's blog:

The Fever Swamp -- This is the archive where Tom has listed links to many of his comments on this topic. And here are the specific entries, in chronological order. While reading them, do sample the vicious comments that follow, where Rockwellites and Raimondo himself lamely try to reply:

Entry #1, Entry #2, Entry #3, Entry #4, Entry #5, Entry #6, Entry #7, Entry #8, Entry #9, Entry #10, Entry #11, Entry #12, Entry #13, Entry #14, Entry #15, Entry #16, Entry #17, Entry #18.

I urge readers to sample any random half dozen of Palmer’s entries, follow the links within them back to the cited sources and then read what these people are actually saying.

I don’t believe that anyone can do that, and then honestly proclaim that the Raimondo-Rockwell axis represent anything that can be called moral, pro-liberty or pro-American.

Now let me stress exactly what I just said: I am saying quite bluntly that I regard a person’s response to these creeps as a basic moral litmus test.

Once again, congratulations, Tom Palmer. And thank you, Alec, for bringing this to our attention.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alec,

Where are my manners? Yes, thank you for bringing this whole thing up.

Michael


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If anyone is "rage-filled," it is Tom Palmer, whose frothy-mouthed rantings against me -- what "less savory career moves," Tommy boy? -- are roiling with emotionalism. The idea that people must either support the war, or be for the "killing" of American troops is just plain stupid. Nowhere do I call for anyone to kill anyone -- hardly a pastime one might credibly indulge in while writing for a webstite called Antiwar.com -- and Palmer has not cited anything that might remotely be described as such. It is typical of the War Party -- which Palmer has joined -- to put American troops in an untenable position, and then blame the antiwar movement when they come back in body-bags.

Palmer doesn't bother to refute the quotations from my columns that I cite: he simply rushes past these to the next accusation, which consists of material that appeared on the unmoderated blog of LewRockwell.com -- a site I have no control over, and can take no responsibility for. His entire argument consists of a dubious intellectual package deal, along with paranoid ravings about how I supposedly posted "sexual innuendo" on his pathetic little site -- all of it conveniently erased. That is patently absurd, and if anyone believes it, they are as deluded as Palmer. Of course, since Palmer long ago banned me from commenting on his site -- after I refuted his slanders on his own turf --  how I could have made these remarks is a mystery.

The rest of Tom's petty, vicious, and quite characteristically bitchy comments don't deserve any refutation: Antiwar.com has not posted material by racists, anti-Semites, or any such dubious characters. He mentions no names: offers no quote: and apparently doesn't feel the need to provide evidence. All this nonsense is rather like the "evidence" for all those infamous "weapons of mass destruction" we were supposed to have found in Iraq. 

If anything is "repulsive," it is Palmer's pious protestations of virtue coupled with the most vicious sliming tactics imaginable. As one commenter, Gil Guillory, a former close associate of Palmer's, wrote on Tommy's own site: Quit lying and smearing, Tom. You're making a fool out of yourself.

As for Robert James Bidinotto, his contribution to this farrago of falsehood is humor, albeit of the unintentional variety. The "cultural critique" he ominously refers to is hardly a condemnation of American culture per se, but a future photographic exhibition on the valorization of warfare by means of some rather sinister looking war toys.
 
"I regard a person’s response to these creeps as a basic moral litmus test," bloviates Bidinotto, in what has got to be the single most pompous statement ever uttered by an Objectivist since ... well, since the day before yesterday, at least. Bob, I'd like you to meet Tom: I'm sure you two have a lot in common....
 
I might add that the argument that we cannot get out of Iraq immediately is reminiscent of the old collectivist argument that we can't end, say., welfare, immediately, because of all the supposedly horrific consequences that would follow. But if we are pursuing a policy that even the sell-out Palmer claims we should never have undertaken to begin with, then pursuing a wrongheaded policy to the bitter end is a prescription for an even worse disaster. Having done the wrong thing, we cannot avoid some pretty bad fallout -- but withdrawal is the best of several bad options. There are no longer any good options. That happens sometimes in life, and this is one of those times. We need to get out, now -- before the entire region is plunged into a war that will take many more lives, and wreak untold destruction.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As for my association with Patrick J. Buchanan: I am proud to call him a friend. Naturally, I don’t endorse all of his views, nor he mine: but that isn’t what friendship is about. He has courageously opposed our foreign policy of global interventionism since Gulf War I, and I am honored to be a contributing editor of and frequent contributor to The American Conservative, of which he is an editor. Yes, Tom, I know, he’s a "homophobe" – but one’s view of homosexuality is not a make-or-break issue for me, as it is for you. The question of war and peace, in my view, is far more important.

Regarding the issue of how or why Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned – I never said or wrote it was "bad sushi," another lie promulgated by Palmer and the Palmerettes – the issue has yet to be settled. One side claims he was poisoned by the KGB, the other side – including medical doctors – claim it was his own lifestyle. In any case, it is hardly "smearing" anyone to recount the medical facts, and the controversy surrounding them, calling into doubt the "official" U.S.-government-approved verdict, before all the evidence is in. Anyone who wants to investigate my views on this matter first-hand, can go
here, here, and here. Read it for yourself. And judge for yourself.


Post 28

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert and Michael, thanks. My only regret is not having posting this sooner.

Dr. Palmer, I'm glad you found this site. It will benefit greatly from the contributions of such a formidable thinker as yourself. Indeed, it already has benefited greatly from this expose of yours.

Alec


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We know he can't think very well; but Justin case he also can't read, the quotation from his parent group's website wasn't something like: "a critique of pro-war values." The quotation is: "a Cultural Critique, targeted initially at American culture and its relationship to war." (Emphasis in original.)

Now, why "cultural critique," and not "political" or "ethical" critique?

And why "American culture" -- and not just (generic) "culture, and its relationship to war"?

Words are meant to convey meanings and nuances, and it's damned obvious why they chose the precise words they did.

But notice that every time you catch these S.O.B.s' hands in the proverbial cookie jar, they insist they were just trying to warm their fingers.

They use the most incendiary rhetoric to denounce the U. S. military and leadership -- e. g., mass murderers, rapists, torturers, Nazis, imperialists, etc.; but when you call them on any of it, they bridle indignantly: How (they demand) can you DARE suggest that we're anti-American, merely because that's the only government on the planet at which we spit our venom 24/7?

If you quote the unconscionable shit posted daily on their websites and blogs, they reply: Oh, that piece was written by someone else, not me; I of course disagree with him; but being broadminded, I merely give him, and dozens of others of his ilk, an unrestricted platform for dumping unconscionable anti-American shit onto the public.

When you point out the blatant fact that all of their screeds, taken together, add up to one long, consistent and unremitting Blame-America-First diatribe, they howl in protest. You're being unfair, they claim; you should judge each discrete article or blog entry or author in absolute isolation, on its own; you should never add up all the myriad components of our websites, organizations, articles, speeches, blogs and books into their anti-American total.

Folks, this is sophistry, and that's the nicest term I can think of.

Please hit the links in my previous post, and track them back to the original sources. Dig through their crap for yourselves. As you do, do a bit of weighing and balancing: weigh how much of the crap they throw at America, as opposed to how much they throw at all the Arab despots, communists, Islamic jihadists, etc.

In contrast, observe how much abuse they hurl at those foreigners -- including Muslims in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq -- who STAND ON AMERICA'S SIDE. Note the labels, e. g., quislings, traitors, neo-con puppets, etc., etc.

Then draw your own conclusions.



Post 30

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 10:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just love that Raimondo's idea of a cultural critique is to point out some army toys being sold by J.C. Penney. Simple fact is, some of the most enjoyable toys from my childhood were representations of war and weaponry: fighter planes, tanks, green plastic army men, Ghostbusters proton packs.

I suppose Raimondo would say that's just because I'm a born warmonger. To which I would reply, the real problem is that lily-livered types like Raimondo spent their childhoods cowering under cardboard shields.


Post 31

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
More nonsense from Bidinotto: he makes a photographic exhibition of WAR TOYS into an all-round denunciation of American culture per se.  That's a pretty thin reed, one that won't bear the enormous weight of his pompous denunciations. Can it, Bidi: you're not convincing anyone. And I don't have to prove my "patriotism" to you, or Palmer, the Jeff Gannon of the libertarian movement.

And it is more BS from Bidinotto when it comes to providing actual quotations: he doesn't quote a single word written by me. Nor does he quote a single bylined article. What's weird, though, is that most of the material we post is culled from news stories published in the mainstream media. How this is "anti-American" is beyond me -- or is it "anti-American" to note that the news from Iraq is all about the gigantic failure of our crazed policy of "liberation," Abu Ghraib-style.

Ayn Rand opposed U.S. entry into World War II -- and I oppose U.S. entry into what the neocons -- yeah, that's you, Bidinotto -- call "World War IV." We have no business saving he world for "democracy," we have no moral obligation to "liberate" the earth at gunpoint -- and the attempt to do so will only result in the loss of what liberties we have in this country, as well as drive this nation into bankruptcy.

What I find particularly disgusting, however, is not just the fact that Bidinotto and Palmer -- two pompous peas in a pod -- are smearing me, but that they're trying to set Antiwar.com for legal prosecution. It is illegal to call for the death of American soldiers: it is illegal to support terrorists, including the Iraqi insurgency. It is illegal, under the mis-named "Patriot" Act, to do what Palmer (and his helper, Bidinotto) accuse me of doing. One has to assume that, along with the unhinged Mr. Cordero (see above), they are angling to have Antiwar.com prosecuted. Not that this surprises me: it's what we have to expect from the neocon-in-"libertarian" clothing and semi-professional witch-hunter, Palmer. The same innuendo of "treason" was bruited about by his buddy, Andrew Sullivan, who tried to imply that we have a connection to "terrorists," and any number of other neocons have made the same argument. I guess being in Google's Top 50 News Sites list, on and off for the past year or so, has raised our public profile: Antiwar.com really is having an influence. And enviouis little nonentities like Palmer just can't stand it.

Well, isn't that just tough. What's pathetic is that these amateur Ellsworth Tooheys would utilize a forum devoted to the work and life of Ayn Rand as a venue for their ankle-biting campaign.


Post 32

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 10:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey, Andry, I also played war games as a kid, but if you take a look at the J.C. Penney war toy of a bombed out civilian "target," which looks like some poor Arab's home, the sinister implications are clear. What's next: the Hasbro version of Abu Ghraib, complete with a plastic Lynndie England holding an Arab on a leash?

A culture, as Objectivists are all too aware, can become corrupted.


Post 33

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew Humphreys rights:

Yes Rand opposed entry into World War II, yes people like Chris and indeed myself who point this out get no end of flak from the majority of Objectivists, but once the US were in WWII do you honestly think Rand would have supported withdrawal on any terms other than US victory?

MH


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the United States "allies" the very country she came from and so very much despised? Who had had already been slaughtering many of it's own people? And do you think she would have considered "U.S. victory" spending massive amounts of it's money (the American citizens money, not the states) fighting on the side of  this country to rid Hitler only to pave the way for Stalin? I would also like to remind you more people died under the hand of Stalin than Hitler, and eventually a greater part of Europe came under this very regime. Not to mention all the brave American  lives that fought and died for this, all the families that believed in it and had their kids come home in body bags, and all the freedoms that were taken away to uphold it.

The question is, what did it accomplish? Do you think she would have said to keep them all there?

Ask yourself why you hear so much more about what happened under the Nazis, and so little about what happened under Stalin. Just one case in point, I was recently looking on Amazon.com for Nazi and Communist dvd's and videos. I can find a ton of stuff on Hitler, and only one little 50 min. biography on "Uncle Joe" as FDR like to call him.

I realize there are good books out now talking about Stalin, but look at the tilt in media, in public education, and the amount of good info about all of this.

Than Americans go to school and see that FDR is one of the greatest presidents ever, and that we "won" the war. And people think there is something wrong with questioning this war? That it is "un-american" to not support it. I believe it is American to question it, because the U.S. was founded on distrust of government. So to me, I find it strange to see all the people on here that mouth all the virtues of spreading "Democracy around the globe" and making the world "safe" for everyone, all the while making you less safe and poor.

Even thought the founding fathers of your country and the founder of the philosophy you love questioned it.

Look at the past, and see how successful these things have been. Elections and democracy do not = freedom.
I hope everyone on here is smarter than I am, and they are able to predict that all will be well. That all of those American lives are worth it.

Ask too, how easy will it be for Bush to be able to pull them out? He won't do it. He won't want to face all those families that had their loved ones die.

But history will bare us all out, and maybe change some minds. Maybe mine too, maybe everything will be ok, but I for one, wouldn't want to risk other peoples lives with this, and I wouldn't expect other people to fight and die for something I'm not willing to fight and die for.

Matthew, I know that you questioned it, so sorry for that last part, I was not refering to you.

Shane

(Edited by shane hurren on 3/07, 2:44pm)


Post 34

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 10:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
quote:  "Hey, Andry, I also played war games as a kid, but if you take a look at the J.C. Penney war toy of a bombed out civilian "target," which looks like some poor Arab's home, the sinister implications are clear. What's next: the Hasbro version of Abu Ghraib, complete with a plastic Lynndie England holding an Arab on a leash?

A culture, as Objectivists are all too aware, can become corrupted."

Justin, your anti-Americanism is so thorough it drips from every word. Couldn't that setting just as well be a former terrorist hideout? What makes you leap to the conclusion that it is the consequence of U.S. malice or collateral damage? And even if you do want to argue that it is most likely from collateral damage, how can you morally equate that with the injustices perpetrated at Abu Ghuraib?

You and your ilk are blind to the nature of our enemy, blind to the good that is being done in Iraq, and blind to the fact that Iraqis are better off now than they were under what you seemingly believe was the benevolent stability and protection of life afforded by their departed dictator, Saddam Hussein.

I have no desire to spend any more of my life arguing these points with you. Feel free to follow with some clever-dick post about how that means you've "really won the debate."


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 10:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, Andry, put down your war toys and volunteer, if we're doing so much "good" in Iraq. You already have the haircut, or a rough approximation. And I don't think establishing a Shi'ite theocracy and killing over 100,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians, is "good." Do you?

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 11:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Poor Justin Raimondo.  Persecuted by the Jews and now by Bidinotto and Palmer.  No doubt the only reason that Bidinotto and Palmer (not to mention those awful Jews he's so concerned about, those Jewish art students he insists were involved in 9/11) are really repeating lies! slander! smears! just in order to try to get him legally punished.  That must be it.  It couldn't be because he has promoted the worst sort of crazy active anti-Americanism.  It couldn't be because he is so opposed to U.S. foreign policy that he wants the enemies of the U.S. to win.  It couldn't be because his rants discredit the ideas of peace and of a foreign policy of defense, rather than intervention.  It couldn't be because he cares not one whit what would happen to millions and millions of people if the Ba'athists and Jihadists were to terrorise over a "failed state" in the middle east.  No, it is because Bidinotto and Palmer are jealous of him and want to see him sent to prison.  So "they're trying to set Antiwar.com for legal prosecution."  That must be it.  And if that's true, then, since crackpots shouldn't be prosecuted for calling for killing American soldiers or for wanting the other side to win, they shouldn't be allowed to say those things.  They should be silenced.  They should be....prosecuted for speaking the truth.


Post 37

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 11:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom & Justin - you are new to this site, but please don't imagine that the Iraq liberation & related matters haven't been thrashed out endlessly prior to your arrival. Needless to say, the debate has frayed tempers & strained friendships. In case you're not already aware of it, my own position is squarely pro-liberation, & Saddamites are right up there at the top of my list of most loathsome people. This includes, qua organisation, ISIL, who, via Freedom News Daily, revel on a daily basis in US casualties (sub-text: "It's all America's fault") & publish endless anti-American commentary which has included an essay calling on Bush to eulogise the beheaders.

In other words, as all SOLOists would know already, I'm 100% with Tom here.

That said, I must report that Justin was enormously helpful to me on an unrelated but important matter—important for the NZ libertarian movement—and for that I remain appreciative and grateful. In this matter, at least, he was on the side of the angels as far as I was & am concerned.

So boys, continue the debate, by all means, but just be mindful that it's not new to us—& all the sexual stuff is probably more information than we need!

Linz

Post 38

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 10:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would also like to say, for me, I don't consider myself, an "America Hater". I like to seperate the state from the people.
I just know, war has unintentional consequences, and it rarely solves the problems. So, it better be worth sending people to die.

I would also like to add, that some Objectivist's here might want to listen to this audio by Ivan Elan at the Independent Institute, who is not an America Hater, and is a foreign policy expert:

http://http://www.independent.org/events/audio_detail.asp?eventID=102

I also recommend his book too:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0945999984/qid=1110178179/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-4445762-6843146

I think people here will be more open to his stuff, than say, Lew Rockwell. I do suggest people at least listen to the free audios, and then decide if they would like to buy the book.

best,

Shane Hurren


Post 39

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 11:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Looks like my link for those audios didn't work...here it is again:

http://www.independent.org/events/audio_detail.asp?eventID=102

hope that works,

Shane


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.