humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Agent Cooper Redacted wrote:
> On Apr 3, 3:17 pm, Potroast wrote:
> > acar wrote:
> > > are advocates of defeat. They need to realize that those so called
> > > advocates of defeat are eager to fight Al Qaeda where it lives, not
> > > Iraq, where it came to kill Americans. Hint: our war is now and has
> > > always been with AlQaeda, and we are not going to defeat AlQaeda in
> > > Iraq, we must go and fight it where it lives.
>
> Amen brother.

Just to clarify something further... I am indeed pessimistic but
not because I happen to be against war. War does indeed work sometimes
even though I don't find it the optimal or safest choice.

I am pessimistic because unlike the situation in Japan and
Hirohito... this religious war is decentralized. Jihad is inherently
in the religion not a particular Imam and religion has been shown to
be far more durable than a politician or even era.

Since there has been very little effort to encourage a peaceful
Muslim meme alternative.... the Jihad will continue to dominate. It is
my belief that Jihad to Muslims is sort of like crime in the
freewheeling west... an annoyance inherently part of the culture.
Because of this I don't even think taking out Iran and Mecca would
stop the attacks (the majority of which are on Muslim or deputed
soil).

If it doesn't work one has to ask where does one go from there? Bob?

Considering US standing at the world at the moment this direction
is a pretty risky venture for very little ROI. Liberated Iraq and
Afghanistan both have death penalties for conversion to other
religions still right? Not much different than what Al Qaeda want
other than the US bases on their soil. They are not ready to enter
the modern world yet and Bush has probably scared them off for a
generation or two.

I still really hope I'm wrong in these assessments. So many people
have died and so much anxiety has been created over these issues it
would be a shame if all their lives were lost for not.

> > even though Bush keeps saying that. (not that Bush would ever
> > exaggerate or distort the truth).
>
> I think the evidence that *that* is the problem is weaker than people
> think. There's a problem, definitely, but it has more to do with
> stupidity and some (huge) honest mistakes, I think, than with
> dishonesty. Not a popular view among those of us who opposed the war,
> but I think it's plausible nonetheless.

It's still distorting the truth although you might be right. I have
mixed feelings and flip-flop on the issue. Sometimes I think he's a
dummy because his actions seem atrocious for both global and American
interests to me.

On the other side..both he and his father made it to President
somehow.... so sometimes I consider he uses I-am-a-regular-guy-making-
my-way-through-life as a method to disarm those around him
(especially the people that voted for him)..