Nuke the ChiComs *NOW*
Dave O'Hearn
Anonymous? Afraid the Reds are going to take over and torture you? They have
computer hackers, you know. For your own safety, I recommend you don't post
anymore.
> [etc etc etc etc]
> Nuke the Reds NOW! One global civilization, one system: Capitalism!
Ha ha ha ha ha.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Robert J. Kolker
"Public " wrote:
> One update to my previous post: the Marxist savages are now demanding
> that America apologize for violating "their" airspace and insisting
> that America stop its surveillance flights.
>
> Let's get a few things straight here. The so-called "People's
> Republic of China" has no moral standing to assert any sovereign
> privileges whatsoever. Thuggish dictators have no rights under any
> proper understanding of international law; by their own contempt for
> the rights of Man they forfeit all the benefits of any kind of
> civilized law.
1. This is not worth starting a major war over.
2. Sec. of State Powell should have told the Chicoms
that he regrets Chines pilots fly like they drive cars.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Public " wrote:
>
> Finally, whoever the legitimate government of China might be and
> whatever their policy about their airspace might be, the
> internationally-recognized limits of airspace jurisdiction extends
> only 12 miles off the coast. 70 miles off the coast is international
> airspace, where Americans have a right to fly their planes and
> detect electromagnetic signals. Or are we supposed to concede that
> the whole Pacific Ocean now a ChiCom lake?
>
> The is only one correct answer America can give to the insolent
> demands of the ChiComs. The ChiCom entity must be defanged and
> destroyed by whatever means necessary. It should be obvious by
> now that global civilization cannot continue as a house divided
> against itself, half slave and half free. As long as nuke-toting
> Marxists exist on this planet, there is a clear and present danger
> to its very survival.
When shall we start the next war? Is an "incident" with a surveillance
plance (or if you wish a "spy" plane) sufficient reason to commit
troops and treasure and incur large casualties?
Have the Chinese People's Republic attacked us lately?
The Chinese have not kidnapped the plane and the crew?
After the collision, the crew of the American plane chose
not to ditch in the ocean.
Is this the cause, the time, and the place to start a nuclear
with the CPR (make no mistake, any serious war will soon
escalate into a nuclear exchange)?
Bob Kolker
6079 Smith W
>One update to my previous post: the Marxist savages are now demanding
>that America apologize for violating "their" airspace and insisting
>that America stop its surveillance flights.
Quack quack quack quack quack!
Hurrah for Big Brother! Down with Eastasia!
And what would America do if it got Chinese spy planes flying up and down
it's coast?
6079 Smith W
Mutual Assured Destruction. In other words, if you, for some bizarre reason,
fired a 'pre-emptive' (my ass) strike at China, you would almost certainly
be a charred, carbonized crisp, along with everyone else in your city,
within hours. And quite honestly, you deserve it.
Stephen Grossman
> 2. Sec. of State Powell should have told the Chicoms
> that he regrets Chines pilots fly like they drive cars.
I just saw a similar email comment on CNN! ARe you stealing jokes?
--
=======================================================
Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
-------------------------------------------------------
Tracking Marxist dialectical revolution: ZigZag
Radically systematic radical metaphysics: Existence 2
http://home.att.net/~sdgross
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman Fairhaven, MA, USA sdg...@att.net
=======================================================
Stephen Grossman
we are moral. they are not. THus, we have rights, they forfeited theirs.
Robert J. Kolker
Stephen Grossman wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> > 2. Sec. of State Powell should have told the Chicoms
> > that he regrets Chines pilots fly like they drive cars.
>
> I just saw a similar email comment on CNN! ARe you stealing jokes?
>
Mine! Mine ! All Mine! Do you hear? All Mine!
>
Bob Kolker
6079 Smith W
>> Quack quack quack quack quack!
>> Hurrah for Big Brother! Down with Eastasia!
>> And what would America do if it got Chinese spy planes flying up and down
>> it's coast?
>
>we are moral. they are not. THus, we have rights, they forfeited theirs.
>
and it's not like the Chinese were roughly 2,500 years in advance of
America. Nooo.
Moral justification for a war is total nonsense. You're going to prove how
moral you are by killing upwards of 15 million civilians? Possibly up to
half a billion, or indeed, indirectly, all life on this Earth?
Try to actually speak from your mouth and not the other end of your
alimentary canal in your reply. And also using your *own* brain somewhere in
the equation would be appreciated, too.
"The purpose of propoganda is to make the populace forget the enemy are
human"
Orwell
6079 Smith W
>Once you begin to play the pragmatist game, once you compromise the
>principle that the integrity of American lives and American territory
>is the highest priority of the American government, then thugs all
>over the world will..
Thugs? THUGS?!? 'Don't fuck with us or we'll nuke you back to the stone
age'. How much more thuggish can you fucking get?!?
Dale Worthington
On 5 Apr 2001, Stephen Grossman wrote:
> we are moral. they are not. THus, we have rights, they forfeited theirs.
>
That is a completely ignorant statement.
We are moral? Come on you are giving Objectivists a bad name.
By what right do you feel it is okay to violate the rights of others
because you think you are right?
Thats called repression. Do socialists in our country forfeit their
"rights" because of the ideas that they hold, and are you willing to view
them as rightless?
Rights are something intrinsic to mans nature, and are defined by it, not
something that can be forfeited, you still have rights even if you kill
someone. You are imprisoned by force in retaliation to your actions, but
you still have your rights, they don't go away ever and its the very idea
that they somehow mysteriously dissappear that allows people to lose sight
of the true nature of rights and thus violations once again become
acceptable.
It was the idea if you held an irrational(immoral) thought about a
minority your decision to chose who works for you was taken away(right of
property), its what made the biggest travesty of human rights in
america possible. The Civil Rights bill.
Dale Worthington
Robert J. Kolker
"Public " wrote:
> 6079 Smith W <win...@ministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Moral justification for a war is total nonsense. You're going to prove how
> > moral you are by killing upwards of 15 million civilians?
>
> No, we are going to prove how moral we are by disarming and killing
> those who are robbing others of liberty. It is sad that millions
> of helpless coolies will get in the way, but that can't be helped.
> We also prove how moral we are by valuing life lived in a manner
> proper to human existence, not life lived in a manner that advances
> the interests of socialist dictators.
Are you aware of what a war would do to millions of United Stateseans.
If our survival were at stake (it is not) it might make sense to
bear the cost of a war. But over a small matter? To sacrifice
the lives of thousands or possible hundreds of thousands of
American citizens? You are daft.
I tell you what. You volunteer to die and I will cheer you
on, very patriotically --- from a safe place.
He who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
Bob Kolker
A is A Exterminators
It's only a fucking matter of self-defense against countries who are mortal
threats or outright aggressors, whose fucking governments have no right to
exist
in current form. Totalitarian nations are thuggish in principle.
Nuking them back to the fucking stone age might not be the specific recommended
policy to implement a proper stand against fucking foreign thugs, but we have
every right to take a stand, in the most effective manner possible for the
protection of individual rights, against these fucking thugs.
--
A is A Exterminators
Here to check your fucking premises
Steve Reed
>[...] And yes, Carter should have nuked Iran too.
>[...] Powell and all the rest of the Bush administration should keep their
>mouths shut. We can save our expression of regrets until ~after~ we
>have taken out their leadership and their strategic assets with a
>first strike.
You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?
--
* Stev...@earthling.net *
The average cost of rehabilitating a seal after the Exxon
Valdez oil spill in Alaska was $80,000. At a special ceremony,
two of the most expensively saved animals were released back
into the wild amid cheers and applause from onlookers. A minute
later, in full view, they were both eaten by a killer whale.
Gaius Helen Mohiam
news:3ACD2C0B...@mediaone.net...
> I tell you what. You volunteer to die and I will cheer you
> on, very patriotically --- from a safe place.
Now, now, Bob, isn't this a bit too much? I mean, there are institutions for
the mentally handicapped like our anonymous friend. -- Helen.
6079 Smith W
In article <11iz6.4740$wQ1.9...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, Gaius Helen Mohiam
<GMo...@Bene-Gesserith.org> wrote:
Graveyards.
Betsy Speicher
> "Public <Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote:
>
> >[...] And yes, Carter should have nuked Iran too.
>
> >[...] Powell and all the rest of the Bush administration should keep their
> >mouths shut. We can save our expression of regrets until ~after~ we
> >have taken out their leadership and their strategic assets with a
> >first strike.
>
> You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?
That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Robert J. Kolker
Betsy Speicher wrote:
>
> That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."
>
I did not think so. If Stephen had anything to say about it,
he would have said it and signed his name to it. What
ever else your husband is, bashful is not it.
Bob Kolker
Chris Cathcart
Okay, if, in your Peikoffian epistemological terminology, it's probable, you
can generate evidence of such. Even more than a shred of it.
Or can we conclude that you're probably trolling?
--
Chris Cathcart
"Forget your perfect offerings; everything's
cracked. That's how the light gets in."
-Unknown
"I felt this incredible surge of power, the way God must feel when
he's holding a gun." -Homer Simpson, on the joys of gun-ownership
"He's a shady character who played us all for chumps!"
-Mayor Quimby, on Armand Tanzarian, a.k.a. Principal Skinner
Gordon G. Sollars
Betsy Speicher writes...
...
> That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."
Then kudos to Chris for a spot-on impersonation!
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@pobox.com
Kyle Haight
Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
>Okay, if, in your Peikoffian epistemological terminology, it's probable, you
>can generate evidence of such. Even more than a shred of it.
Based on the fact that you have engaged in similar behavior on this group
in the past (and evidence to that effect has been presented), you are
a plausible candidate in this case. This is no different from rounding
up the "usual suspects" in a criminal investigation. It isn't conclusive,
but it's a good place to start.
>Or can we conclude that you're probably trolling?
I think she drew a plausible inference based on observations of prior
behavior. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't want
to be accused of pseudonymous impersonations of "ARIans", you shouldn't
have been doing it in the first place.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
"Feeding on the blood of the working classes for fun and profit."
Ken Gardner
> > That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."
> Then kudos to Chris for a spot-on impersonation!
That's who I thought it was as well, and if so a first rate job at that.
But it could just as easily be an parody of original Peikoff radio
speech as well.
--
Ken
Chris Cathcart
>In article <3AE6...@MailAndNews.com>,
>Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>
>>Okay, if, in your Peikoffian epistemological terminology, it's probable, you
>>can generate evidence of such. Even more than a shred of it.
>
>Based on the fact that you have engaged in similar behavior on this group
>in the past (and evidence to that effect has been presented), you are
>a plausible candidate in this case.
That doesn't raise it above the level of "possible." Mrs. Speicher stated
it
was "probably" so, in which case she purports to have evidence (just like in
past instances there was). I'm interested in hearing Mrs. Speicher's
response
on this before others start trying to cover for her.
>>Or can we conclude that you're probably trolling?
>
>I think she drew a plausible inference based on observations of prior
>behavior.
Ah. Oh. I see irony in none of this. Probably because there is some
evidence in this case for the counter-charge.
Gordon G. Sollars
> But it could just as easily be an parody of original Peikoff radio
> speech as well.
Parody? Who's to say it won't be an actual Peikoff speech?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@pobox.com
dbco...@webinbox.com
Objectivism is an evil philosophy that hides its nationalistic/collectivist
death-wish behind a facade of egoism, capitalism, etc. Get a glimpse behi
nd the facade, and you'll see that Objectivism is really about pumping up
the U.S.A. to wage a kind of religious war against everyone who disagrees w
ith Ayn Rand. And, as is obvious from the proposals of Rand's fanatic deat
h-cult to nuke Iran and nuke China, Objectivists are willing to go to any e
xtreme to wage their crusades, no matter how many innocent civilians get ca
ught in the cross-fire.
I urge you - do not confuse Objectivists with advocates of individual right
s or of rational self-interest.
-Coop
__________________________________________
Sent using WebInbox. "Your email gateway."
Check us out at http://www.webinbox.com
Ken Gardner
> Objectivism is an evil philosophy that hides its
> nationalistic/collectivist death-wish behind a facade of egoism,
> capitalism, etc. Get a glimpse behind the facade, and you'll see
> that Objectivism is really about pumping up the U.S.A. to wage a
> kind of religious war against everyone who disagrees with Ayn Rand.
> And, as is obvious from the proposals of Rand's fanatic death-cult to
> nuke Iran and nuke China, Objectivists are willing to go to any extreme
> to wage their crusades, no matter how many innocent civilians get caught
> in the cross-fire.
I hate to break it to you like this, but I strongly suspect that the
"nuke China" posts are a very well-done parody, written either by a sane
Objectivist (but it wasn't me) or a non-Objectivist who is a veteran of
the nuke Tehran thread. My guess is Chris Cathcart.
--
Ken
6079 Smith W
In article <a3bf298a5defb9ca...@anon.xg.nu>, "Public
<Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote:
>The rational thing for America to do is to stamp out dictatorships
>before they acquire survivable long-range nuclear forces. In the
>case of Marxist-occupied China (and, I would also argue, Iran), the
>dictatorships will reach that point within the decade. We can't
>afford to let that happen. We must strike now, while we still have
>a chance to prevail militarily.
>
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that Ayn Rand will become the 21st
Nietzche - eventually, some right-wing government is going to take hold (oh
wait Bush *did* get elected - make that already takken hold) and use Ayn
Rand as it's moral justification.
Please, people, continue reading Ayn Rand, continue being objectivists, but
for G*d's sake at least think for yourselves sometimes.
Kyle Haight
>Nietzche - eventually, some right-wing government is going to take hold (oh
>wait Bush *did* get elected - make that already takken hold) and use Ayn
>Rand as it's moral justification.
I have yet to see any evidence that Bush uses Rand's theories as moral
justifications for his actions; based on what I've heard of his speeches
I'd say he's a Christian altruist. Cites to the contrary?
>Please, people, continue reading Ayn Rand, continue being objectivists, but
>for G*d's sake at least think for yourselves sometimes.
Oh, by all means.
dbco...@webinbox.com
<kesga...@home.com> wrote:
> I hate to break it to you like this, but I strongly suspect that the
> "nuke China" posts are a very well-done parody, written either by a sane
> Objectivist (but it wasn't me) or a non-Objectivist who is a veteran of
> the nuke Tehran thread. My guess is Chris Cathcart.
From my point of view, a "sane Objectivist" is a rational egoist who
is in the process of moving away from Objectivism or who has not yet
discovered what Objectivism is really all about.
A "consistent Objectivist" on the other hand spouts the kind of
insanity that Rand, Dr. Peikoff, Dr. Speicher, and Anonymous have
come up with. The nuclear macho flash suits Ayn Rand's premises to a
tee. True believers lap this stuff up because Objectivism portrays
the world in terms of ideological struggle among the Great
Philosophers in much the same way that Marxism portrays the world
in terms of class struggle.
Whether any of these people are serious about their proposals or not
is an entirely different question. Remember that the essence of a
good parody is that it isn't too far from the original. For all
we know, Ayn Rand herself may have been a Soviet agent whose writings
were intended from the start to be a twisted parody of
pro-capitalist philosophies.
Robert J. Kolker
"Public " wrote:
>
> The one thing I ask of you is this: please make the effort to judge
> the ideas put forward in my posts on their intellectual merit, not on
> the basis of groundless speculation about who is the author of them.
Have you considered this: If we attack China over the matter of
the detainees, the detainees will be killed immediately. Very
counter productive. Doing something that will get them killed
is a very bad way of freeing them. On the other had, if the ChiComs
try to do some serious blackmail using the detainees, then the detainees
would have to be sacrificed. Never dicker over hostages. If they die,
they die.
Bob Kolker
Gaius Helen Mohiam
news:661c5223923f9e71...@anon.xg.nu...
> The one thing I ask of you is this: please make the effort to judge
> the ideas put forward in my posts on their intellectual merit, not on
> the basis of groundless speculation about who is the author of them.
[Laughing] Be careful what you wish for, son. "Intellectual merit"?...
Ken Gardner
> Betsy, I apologize to you and your husband for any misattribution of
> my posts. For the record, let me say that I do not claim to speak for
> Objectivism....
That's for damn sure.
> and I am not trying to assume the identity of anyone
> who posts to humanities.philosophy.objectivism.
Well, who are you exactly if you are not Chris Cathcart doing a
masterful parody of Betsy's husband? I'm sure your parents didn't name
you "Public <anonymous_account>," although if they did it explains much.
Are you too embarrassed to use your real name? I would be if I were
you. Also, are you over the age of 16? Just curious....
> Furthermore, I recognize that the courageous, principled stand your
> husband took with respect to Iran....
[Insert "barf" here....]
> ...cannot be automatically linked to my proposal for dealing with the
> Peking bandit regime.
Sure it can. In both cases, the proposal involves the initiation of
deadly force against millions of totally innocent civilians.
[...]
> I would not expect many Objectivists would know offhand what
> the ChiComs actually have, or what it would take to successfully
> neutralize what they have. Such detailed knowledge of military
> affairs is necessary before we can apply the more fundamental
> philosophical principles to this case.
Suppose we determine that we can take them out in a first strike. Then
what? Does seizing a single plane, detaining 24 people, and acting like
complete assholes with chips on their shoulder justify a nuking that
could result in the deaths of millions and perhaps start WWIII?
[...]
--
Ken
PS: If you are not Chris, maybe you are dbcooper in disguise. Or Steve
Davis.
Chris Cathcart
>The enigma known only as "Public <Anonymous_Account> says..."
>
>> who posts to humanities.philosophy.objectivism.
>
>Well, who are you exactly if you are not Chris Cathcart doing a
>masterful parody of Betsy's husband?
Well, if it's me, I'm having quite a fun time watching myself put forth all
these arguments without having to expend any effort doing so -- and what's
more, saying things that never even came to my mind! :-)
What's interesting is how *this* anonymous account has been the target of
speculation in the past couple days, in regards to authorship. Adds a bit
more to the fun of watching what's going on.
Ken Gardner
> >Well, who are you exactly if you are not Chris Cathcart doing a
> >masterful parody of Betsy's husband?
> Well, if it's me, I'm having quite a fun time watching myself put forth all
> these arguments without having to expend any effort doing so -- and what's
> more, saying things that never even came to my mind! :-)
> What's interesting is how *this* anonymous account has been the target of
> speculation in the past couple days, in regards to authorship. Adds a bit
> more to the fun of watching what's going on.
someone who was a veteran of the nuke Tehran thread -- probably someone
on the ARI side who got his ass thoroughly kicked and blames my
"altruistic psycho-espistemology" for that fact instead of his own
intellectual incompetence. Steve Davis comes readily to mind, but there
were others as well.
Don't take this personally, but when the revolution comes, people who
use fake names to post on a philosophical board will be punished for
their crimes. :)
--
Ken
Dale Worthington
>
> No, Stephen Grossman is right. If he is an Objectivist, then he is
> giving Objectivism a good name.
>
> Marxist savages do forfeit their rights when they establish themselves
> as dictatorships.
As I stated before(if you had bothered to go past the judgemental
dictatorial mind-block that sprang from reaction to my first statement),
you could have seen my point.
> The theory that Marxist governments are morally equivalent to
> capitalist governments and are entitled to the same respect for national
> sovereignty is nauseating
At what point did I claim that Marxist governments were "morally
equivalent"? Please quote me.
Morals have nothing to do with rights in the context of having them.
Let me spell it out once again. Immoral does not = rightless. Rights are a
condition of our nature as human beings. Or do you need me to quote Rand
for you? Time to check your premises.
> - we have every right to destroy them, and when the necessity arises, we
> ought to do so.
Yes and when the necessity does I am sure we will.
They have not killed any of our pilots that I am aware of.
> The bandit regime in Peking has proven, not just in the EP-3 incident,
> but in a long string of words and deeds, that it is an enemy of the
> United States. The EP-3 incident is just the last straw in that
> the insolent hooliganism of the ChiComs has grown to the point that
> the U.S., if it has any regard to its own interests at all, absolutely
> cannot tolerate it.
What by nuclear first strike as you later indicate?
I don't know of any greater hooliganism then that.
> Also, if we don't take them out now with a nuclear first strike, the
> socialist beasts that are holding most of China hostage will continue
> to acquire capital and technology from the free world and use it to
> build up their military strength.
Yea we see your true nature now nameless one.
YOU propose taking out the "socialist beasts" who are "holding most of
China hostage" with a nuclear first strike. Hmmm.. I don't recall
Objectivism advocating sacrifice of the few to the many, especially not
the many to the few.
> Over time, they will become just as menacing a threat to our existence
> as the Soviet Union used to be.
>
> If Bush turns wimp now, we are going to be in for another long and
> dangerous Cold War - but unlike the first Cold War, America will not
> enter the struggle with solid alliances or a preponderance of force.
Go to your grave a scared little boy.
> The rational thing for America to do is to stamp out dictatorships
> before they acquire survivable long-range nuclear forces. In the
> case of Marxist-occupied China (and, I would also argue, Iran), the
> dictatorships will reach that point within the decade. We can't
> afford to let that happen. We must strike now, while we still have
> a chance to prevail militarily.
Good god you advocate shooting a shoplifter for buying a gun.
LOOK who is the hooligan now.
Get them before they get you. I see the law of the jungle is not to far
off in this country.
Dale Worthington
Ken Gardner
> Yea we see your true nature now nameless one.
> YOU propose taking out the "socialist beasts" who are "holding most of
> China hostage" with a nuclear first strike. Hmmm.. I don't recall
> Objectivism advocating sacrifice of the few to the many, especially not
> the many to the few.
Think again. [Insert "Welcome to HPO" here.] You are right about
Objectivism not advocating any such thing, but last May many here on HPO
who call themselves "Objectivists" advocated a nuclear attack against
Tehran, Iran (a city of over 10 million people) in the name of "fighting
terrorism." With one possible exception, every HPO regular who is pro-
ARI advocated the nuking of Tehran.
The underlying Objectivist principle is the same in both cases: force is
proper only in retaliation and only against those who initiate force.
This means that you don't nuke millions of innocent people to kill a few
guilty people as well, especially when alternative methods are available
to punish the guilty. And, going back to the current problem with
China, even the guilty do not deserve death under these circumstances.
Of course, the Chinese government should be severely punished in other
ways.
--
Ken
Dale Worthington
On 7 Apr 2001, Ken Gardner wrote:
>
> Think again.
What does that mean?
> You are right about
> Objectivism not advocating any such thing, but last May many here on HPO
> who call themselves "Objectivists" advocated a nuclear attack against
> Tehran
I would argue that decidedly that those people are not Objectivists.
Just because some says "I am an American" or some such other statement
does not mean that that means a pile of dogshit to me.
Bottom line: if they act in a manner that is contradictory to what they
claim, well they must be mistaken.
> The underlying Objectivist principle is the same in both cases: force is
> proper only in retaliation and only against those who initiate force.
Correct.
> This means that you don't nuke millions of innocent people to kill a few
> guilty people as well, especially when alternative methods are available
> to punish the guilty.
I agree.
> And, going back to the current problem with China, even the guilty do
> not deserve death under these circumstances.
> Of course, the Chinese government should be severely punished in other
> ways.
And in what way are we in disagreement?
I must be confused. :)
Dale Worthington
Dale Worthington
On 7 Apr 2001, Public <Anonymous_Account> wrote:
>
> Yes, I have considered this as well as the prospect that many other
> Americans in China would get killed, but I maintain that it is not
> nearly so counterproductive as letting dictators around the world
> think that they stand to profit in any way from grabbing Americans in
> the future. The correct way to respond to hostage-taking is to
> immediately destroy the hostage-takers.
You are an idiot and not an Objectivist. You would willingly sacrifice
innocent people, even AMERICANS to start a war.
Sacrifice the few to the many? once again you spout off some innane
bullshit and criticize me for my views? hah.. I hope somehow that when the
Chinese retaliate to one of your "first strike" scenarios, the first and
only thing that they hit is your little backwoods village with all the
other jungle dwellers.
Your are so full of shit it sickens me. I just hope you don't own any
guns.
> The problem with the do-nothing approach is that hostage-takers don't
> necessarily have to extract formal concessions from the U.S. in order
> to achieve their ends. The mere fact that they are able to get away
> with defying, intimidating, and humiliating America by grabbing and
> holding Americans is enough of a ransom for many of them. Making
> Uncle Sam look weak or indifferent to the fate of its people or its
> territory is quite enough to undercut the very purpose for which the
> U.S. government exists.
You are starting to make a modicom of sense here, too bad your solution
for doing something about is something akin to the holocaust.
> While it is desirable to minimize harm to the hostages and to innocent
> bystanders while going after the hostage-takers, that doesn't mean
> that you give the hostage-takers a break out of fear that hostages
> or bystanders are going to get hurt. Terrorist governments must learn
> that there is no place that is safe from the thermonuclear wrath of
> the fierce and ever vigilant American Eagle.
Your all-to-willing-nukem us against them mentality is really showing off
as tribalism. And it really truly shows that you have not an inkling of
the horrific destructive power of nuclear weapons, which would cause more
pain and death than another WWI and WWII put together.
If you really want to hurt the Chinese dictatorship keep them from
molesting and raping other countries with military policing, put all
trading with China to a halt and let them collapse like Russia.
Or here is a better solution, flood them with information and education
and they will rebel and overthrow their own government.
Dale Worthington
Robert J. Kolker
Dale Worthington wrote:
>
> Or here is a better solution, flood them with information and education
> and they will rebel and overthrow their own government.
That wont work. People accept their governments out of
habit. As long as it is bearable they will not revolt or rebel.
Bob Kolker
David Buchner
> America. Nooo.
You're right. I forgot they had interstellar spaceships and nanotech
manufacturing.
--
David
Buc...@wcta.net Osage MN http://customer.wcta.net/buchner
Robert J. Kolker
David Buchner wrote:
>
> You're right. I forgot they had interstellar spaceships and nanotech
> manufacturing.
About 400 years ago the Chinese were way ahead of
the west. But the dreadful Ming Dynasty spelled the
beginning of the end for them.
While the Portugese were creeping around the west of
africa in 85 foot long Barques, Cheng Ho [1] was plying
the Arabian sees with a fleet of ships about 400 feet
long. A total of 37,000 in his flotilla.
Sic Transit Gloriat Mundae
Bob Kolker
[1] See the -Discoverers - by Daniel Borstin
6079 Smith W
In article <1ereo0q.1g3bbj61vtwz8gN%buc...@wcta.net>, David Buchner
<buc...@wcta.net> wrote:
>6079 Smith W <win...@ministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote:
>> and it's not like the Chinese were roughly 2,500 years in advance of
>> America. Nooo.
>
>You're right. I forgot they had interstellar spaceships and nanotech
>manufacturing.
>
>
the direct quote of the original follows below:
">we are moral. they are not. THus, we have rights, they forfeited theirs.
>
and it's not like the Chinese were roughly 2,500 years in advance of
America. Nooo."
note the word "moral"? Note the implication of the word "morality"? Note how
you're desperately trying to win this argument by picking apart semantics?
the main Taoist text, the Tao Te Ching, was written c.600 BCE. It contains
truisms that were essentially repeated by Western philosophers only from the
17th century onwards (yes. The 17th century. Before America itself even had
any noteworthy philosophers). And don't ask me to quote them, just read the
goddam thing. It's not very long.
Ken Gardner
> > Think again.
> What does that mean?
I was urging you to reconsider the notion that some people who call
themselves "Objectivists" would be opposed to using nuclear weapons in
response to the Chinese situation.
> > You are right about
> > Objectivism not advocating any such thing, but last May many here on HPO
> > who call themselves "Objectivists" advocated a nuclear attack against
> > Tehran
> I would argue that decidedly that those people are not Objectivists.
As I did at the time and still would today.
> Just because some says "I am an American" or some such other statement
> does not mean that that means a pile of dogshit to me.
> Bottom line: if they act in a manner that is contradictory to what they
> claim, well they must be mistaken.
Exactly.
> And in what way are we in disagreement?
> I must be confused. :)
No, you are very clear-headed on this point. <G> But do you also
realize that the entire nuke Tehran idea originated from a Leonard
Peikoff radio speech in September 1998 in which he essentially said that
it would be appropriate to use nuclear weapons against Iran, Sudan, and
Afghanistan as part of "fighting terrorism." For years I used to be a
tireless defender of Leonard Peikoff, but he lost me in about a
nanosecond after I found out about that speech. So that's what you're up
against, and what the real underlying issue is here at HPO (the post
from "Public Anonymous" simply sets the stage) -- just be prepared to
handle the consequences.
--
Ken
R Lawrence
>You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?
I do not know of any previous instance in which Mr. Speicher has been
anything other than forthright in stating his views under his own name. I
do not always agree with everything he has to say, but he has always been
willing to express his beliefs openly. Moreover, some of the lingo in this
particular post ("ChiComs," "slavers," etc.) is not typical of him. So
overall I see zero reason to suspect him of generating this post.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
R Lawrence
>That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."
I have to disagree with this interpretation as well. Mr. Cathcart's
parodies are usually quite transparent, and the postings by this person do
not really resemble his. We should all keep in mind that there are quite a
few people who hold unusual views and are willing to express them in this
forum. Just because they choose to do so anonymously does not mean they
should be accused of impersonation or parody.
R Lawrence
>With one possible exception, every HPO regular who is pro-
>ARI advocated the nuking of Tehran.
Let's not beat around the bush. I believe the ARI does a good job promoting
Objectivism overall, and I support its efforts to do so. Those facts
notwithstanding, I believe that the stand taken on this subject by some
other ARI supporters (including Leonard Peikoff) is seriously mistaken.
C'est la vie. The suggestion that everyone who supports the work of ARI
will agree on all other issues is ridiculous and insulting. The last I
checked, people -- ARI supporters included -- had individual judgment and
free will.
Ken Gardner
> >With one possible exception, every HPO regular who is pro-
> >ARI advocated the nuking of Tehran.
> Let's not beat around the bush. I believe the ARI does a good job promoting
> Objectivism overall, and I support its efforts to do so. Those facts
> notwithstanding, I believe that the stand taken on this subject by some
> other ARI supporters (including Leonard Peikoff) is seriously mistaken.
"Seriously" is an understatement. I think it is so bad that it
essentially obliterates everything else that they are trying to do -- it
certainly did so for me. It's like asking, "other than that, Mrs.
Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
> C'est la vie. The suggestion that everyone who supports the work of ARI
> will agree on all other issues is ridiculous and insulting. The last I
> checked, people -- ARI supporters included -- had individual judgment and
> free will.
Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not trying to make this overly broad a
statement, much less ridicule or insult anyone who has ever expressed
support for ARI.
--
Ken
AynRand12
>"Seriously" is an understatement. I think it is so bad that it
>essentially obliterates everything else that they are trying to do -- it
>certainly did so for me. It's like asking, "other than that, Mrs.
>Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Goodness...that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I'll have find
some way to sneak it into a conversation today.
Don Watkins
Stephen Speicher
> Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?
>
> I do not know of any previous instance in which Mr. Speicher has been
> anything other than forthright in stating his views under his own name.
Not quite the case, Richard. Although Reed, as usual, is entirely
mistaken, it is me who fabricated "The Fiz." It was a very
interesting experiment. It is quite amazing what a few well
chosen insults directed against "ARIans" and "Randroids" can
solicit in private e-mail from their enemies. What I learned was
truly fascinating.
My personal apologies to Dean and Dave, both of whom I hope will
realize that none of what was said, was actually meant. I had to
appear as a rabid anti-"ARIan", anti-"Randroid" in order to be
brought into the fold. I actually spent a great deal of time
studying the techniques used by the various groups of
anti-Objectivists here. "The Fiz" was a unification of them all,
and he apparently was welcomed with open arms.
Again, my apologies to Dean and Dave. And "Helen", I'm afraid I
must call off our engagement!
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
James E. Prescott
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> [...] What I learned was truly fascinating.
This really sounds seedy. What on earth could you possibly have learned,
Stephen? Something about philosophy? Something about reality?
I think -- and it's just a guess, mind you, but correct me if I'm wrong --
that you were trying to learn something damaging about certain posters to
HPO, and you now think you did that. Well, why do you people (the proARIs,
the anti-ARIs) all hate each other so much? Why do you obsess about each
other so much?
Give it a rest. Grow the hell up. And let's discuss Philosophy. Thanks.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Gaius Helen Mohiam
certain: Stephen Speicher will be surprised to learn about his role in all
this...
Betsy, honey, would you like to shed some light on this matter? For once,
you would be eminently qualified.
Helen.
Gaius Helen Mohiam
news:004101c0c04b$5c1787a0$44b2fea9@prescott...
> I think -- and it's just a guess, mind you, but correct me if I'm wrong --
> that you were trying to learn something damaging about certain posters to
> HPO, and you now think you did that.
I think you are much too gullible. Don't trust any header you see.
Greetings from the Bene-Gesserith -- Helen
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence wrote:
>>I do not know of any previous instance in which Mr. Speicher has been
>>anything other than forthright in stating his views under his own name.
>
>Not quite the case, Richard. Although Reed, as usual, is entirely
>mistaken, it is me who fabricated "The Fiz."
Ah, but "The Fiz" was not stating your own views. The accusation in this
thread was that you were anonymously posting views that you agreed with,
not mimicking views that you do not agree with. So I was still correct,
unless you have other secret identities. (Actually, I was technically right
in any case, since my statement was that "I do not know of ..." -- but I'm
not getting quite that picky.)
> "The Fiz" was a unification of them all,
>and he apparently was welcomed with open arms.
I started mostly ignoring "The Fiz" after a few posts. I guess now I'll
have to go back and read them all more closely, just for kicks.
6079 Smith W
In article <004101c0c04b$5c1787a0$44b2fea9@prescott>, "James E. Prescott"
<jep...@kornet.net> wrote:
> Well, why do you people (the proARIs,
>the anti-ARIs) all hate each other so much? Why do you obsess about each
>other so much?
>
>Give it a rest. Grow the hell up. And let's discuss Philosophy. Thanks.
>
conflict of opinion. Wars have been started for far less.
I think it bugs anti-ARIs like myself that the pro-ARIs don't seem to think
for themselves and it bugs pro-ARIs that the antis seem to live in our own
little cloud-cuckoo lands where nothing is real. (my more cynical theory is
that we 'haven't seen the light')
This is just a theory.
People will be people.
Unfortunately.
Ken Gardner
> I think it bugs anti-ARIs like myself that the pro-ARIs don't seem to think
> for themselves and it bugs pro-ARIs that the antis seem to live in our own
> little cloud-cuckoo lands where nothing is real.
You have to distinguish here between anti-ARIs who are Objectivists and
those who are not. The two groups are not exclusive of each other.
--
Ken
James E. Prescott
> "James E. Prescott" <jep...@kornet.net> wrote:
> > I think -- and it's just a guess, mind you, but correct me
> > if I'm wrong -- that you [Stephan Speicher] were trying
> > to learn something damaging about certain posters to
> > HPO, and you now think you did that.
> I think you are much too gullible. Don't trust any header you see.
> Greetings from the Bene-Gesserith -- Helen
And greetings to you in return, Helen. /I'm/ gullible!? I suppose, in some
regards, I am. I'm perfectly willing to take at face value what I read here
in HPO when it's offered for the sake of philosophical discussion. After all
nobody here is trying to sell me any real estate in Florida. I can afford to
be accepting of what people say when all I'm after here is a sensible
argument or two.
But at the same time it wasn't me who was buying the line that Fiz was
spouting, even about others, much less about myself, and I told him so. If
anyone was gullible regarding those slams and those boasts, it wasn't me.
And I'd feel the same about this even were I to learn right now that, lo'
and behold, Stephan Speicher is not the Fiz after all. What possible
difference could that make to the one and only, Yours Truly?
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101040...@atlantis.compbio.caltech.edu..
..
> On 7 Apr 2001, R Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote:
> >
> > >You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?
> >
> > I do not know of any previous instance in which Mr. Speicher has been
> > anything other than forthright in stating his views under his own name.
>
> Not quite the case, Richard. Although Reed, as usual, is entirely
> mistaken, it is me who fabricated "The Fiz." It was a very
> interesting experiment. It is quite amazing what a few well
> chosen insults directed against "ARIans" and "Randroids" can
> solicit in private e-mail from their enemies. What I learned was
> truly fascinating.
>
> My personal apologies to Dean and Dave, both of whom I hope will
> realize that none of what was said, was actually meant. I had to
> appear as a rabid anti-"ARIan", anti-"Randroid" in order to be
> brought into the fold. I actually spent a great deal of time
> studying the techniques used by the various groups of
> anti-Objectivists here. "The Fiz" was a unification of them all,
> and he apparently was welcomed with open arms.
You had me well fooled.
Nonetheless, I find myself most amused.
--
Arnold
6079 Smith W
objectivists and subjectivists do not only come from groups of people whose
philosophical schools of thought are different, but also socio-politically.
Objectivists seem to be more nationalistic, right-wing and orthodox, whereas
subjectivists seem to be more tending to the left.
It could also be said that the majority of subjectivists (exclusing myself,
but that's just because i'm an argumentative jerk), because of the very
nature of their school of thought, are happier to live and let live.
Objectivists naturally attempt to show the other party 'the true state of
being', if you will.
It would, of course, be simplest to agree to disagree.
Stephen Speicher
>
> I hope that your husband and all who have supported him in the
> face of all the emotional rantings about Iran would give
> careful consideration to my proposal.
>
I have not read your proposal, but the fact that we allowed --
nay, assisted -- Red China in becoming a nuclear power is a
national disgrace. I would have supported using whatever means of
force would be necessary to have kept nuclear weapons, and their
delivery systems, from the hands of this totalitarian regime. Had
we acted properly, in our own self interest, years ago, there
would be no discussion today of what to do about American
hostages in Red China.
James E. Prescott
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> [...] I would have supported using whatever means of
> force would be necessary to have kept nuclear weapons,
> and their delivery systems, from the hands of this
> totalitarian regime. Had we acted properly, in our own
> self interest, years ago, there would be no discussion
> today of what to do about American hostages in Red China.
I don't see the connection between nuclear weapons and the service members
being held by the communists. We do similar surveillance flights against
enemy states that do not have any way of threatening us with nuclear
weapons, and the standoff could now be just as easily against such an enemy
state. What difference would that make?
And, I believe the Chinese do not yet have intercontinental delivery systems
that pose a threat of anywhere near the same magnitude we faced from the
former Soviet Union, so it's not too late to keep these "delivery systems
from the hands of this totalitarian regime." What should we do about it?
And what should we do, now, about the Chinese improperly holding our people?
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Betsy Speicher
> >===== Original Message From Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> =====
> >On 6 Apr 2001, Steve Reed wrote:
> >> "Public <Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an
> "ARIan."
> Okay, if, in your Peikoffian epistemological terminology, it's probable, you
> can generate evidence of such.
Of course. You have a well-known history of writing posts under
assumed names while pretending to be an ARI-supporter.
> Even more than a shred of it.
There's LOTS of evidence. You have done that a lot.
In fact, it is such a bizarre thing to do that I believe you are the ONLY
one to have ever done so on h.p.o.
> Or can we conclude that you're probably trolling?
Nope. I have too much evidence.
.... but where's YOUR evidence that I am "probably" trolling. (Then again,
based on how you use the term, "trolling" means "anything written by
someone whose arguments I, Cathcart, can't answer." I guess that makes
what I write "trolling" in the Cathcart Dictionary.)
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Chris Cathcart
>On 6 Apr 2001, Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
>> >===== Original Message From Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> =====
>> >On 6 Apr 2001, Steve Reed wrote:
>
>> >> "Public <Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an
>> "ARIan."
>
>> Okay, if, in your Peikoffian epistemological terminology, it's probable,
you
>> can generate evidence of such.
>
>Of course. You have a well-known history of writing posts under
>assumed names while pretending to be an ARI-supporter.
That only makes it "possible" in Peikoffian terminology. You need something
besides this to show that it's probable. (Further, anyone with
above-average
intelligence could have easily guessed that it was someone writing a parody
under under a different name; this instance is hardly a clear example of
such,
which places only further requirements on you to substantiate the "probably"
charge.)
>> Or can we conclude that you're probably trolling?
>
>Nope. I have too much evidence.
>
>.... but where's YOUR evidence that I am "probably" trolling. (Then again,
>based on how you use the term, "trolling" means "anything written by
>someone whose arguments I, Cathcart, can't answer." I guess that makes
>what I write "trolling" in the Cathcart Dictionary.)
This is a fine example of trolling.
--
Chris Cathcart
"Forget your perfect offering;
There's a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in."
-Leonard Cohen
"I felt this incredible surge of power, the way God must feel when
he's holding a gun." -Homer Simpson, on the joys of gun-ownership
"Show business is dog-eat-dog. It's worse than dog-eat-dog.
It's dog-doesn't-return-other-dog's-phone-calls." -Cliff Stern
"No, it'll be great! It'll be great, because all those
Ph.D.'s are in there ... discussing 'modes of alienation'
and we'll be in here quietly humping." -Alvy Singer
fizz...@freedom.net
> Further, anyone with above-average intelligence could have easily
> guessed that it was someone writing a parody under under a different
> name;
>
One would think so...
(hee-haw)
...The Fiz...
Chris Cathcart
Say, Fiz, would you believe that some self-styled "long-time Objectivists"
give us these arguments for why someone can arrive at a conclusion that's
"true, based on the facts," but "not true in reality"? And further, that
later truths can contradict earlier ones, due to "different facts"? Even
with
their supposed penchant for objectivity and accountability, such individuals
have yet to own up to their wild deviations from Objectivism and common
sense.
(There was this other incident exhibiting similar tendencies regarding a
certain Chris Wolf, though it's a bit too sordid to go into detail here...)
Given these individuals' supposed reputation for intellectual credibility
among other self-styled "true Objectivists" (who've remained deafeningly
silent on the matter, one might note), one might even entertain the
possibility that such arguments were written by fraudulent pretenders under
the *screen name* (and email address) of such individuals!
Pretty discouraging, though, if it it's really coming from a self-proclaimed
long-time Objectivist, ain't it? It seems to be just the kind of
intellectually discreditable "Randroid" behavior to which you alluded a
number
of times in the past few days.
Dean Sandin
> On 7 Apr 2001, R Lawrence wrote:
>
> > Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote:
> >
> > >You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?
> >
> > I do not know of any previous instance in which Mr. Speicher has been
> > anything other than forthright in stating his views under his own name.
>
> Not quite the case, Richard. Although Reed, as usual, is entirely
> mistaken, it is me who fabricated "The Fiz." It was a very
> interesting experiment. It is quite amazing what a few well
> chosen insults directed against "ARIans" and "Randroids" can
> solicit in private e-mail from their enemies. What I learned was
> truly fascinating.
>
> My personal apologies to Dean and Dave, both of whom I hope will
> realize that none of what was said, was actually meant. I had to
> appear as a rabid anti-"ARIan", anti-"Randroid" in order to be
> brought into the fold.
Not to worry. Hilarious! And you succeeded so well in the
technique of studious evasion that I had no choice but to
precipitously drop my attempt to get the Fizz to say anything at
all of substance ("All Fizz and No Substance") such that there
could be a conversation in the first place.
At least _I_ got to formulate and say something of substance.
That's what posting opportunities are for anyhow.
Oh, and welcome back....
--Dean
Dean Sandin
> Ken Gardner <kesga...@home.com> wrote:
> >> ...cannot be automatically linked to my proposal for dealing with the
> >> Peking bandit regime.
> >
> > Sure it can. In both cases, the proposal involves the initiation of
> > deadly force against millions of totally innocent civilians.
>
> In both proposals, force is not being initiated by the United States. It
> is being
> directed against aggressors who need to be destroyed; that makes it retal
> iatory
> force.
Be warned from his history on this matter: Gardner is, shall we
say, corrupted by a fixed idea that is in polar opposition to
Objectivism: the intrinsic, contextless value of human life.
> In my proposal there is risk (though a minimal one according to my analysis)
> of a counter-strike by the aggressor. I'm sure that Stephen and other
> Objectivists
> would want to evaluate that risk before endorsing my proposal.
Fair enough. The consequences attending that risk are potentially
enormous. The important thing here is that these issues are dealt
with objectively and seriously. When people try to shout you
down, or paint you a-priori as a monster, _that_ is what they are
trying to prevent: objective thought on a life-and-death matter.
Why? The ascendancy of the emotion of fear over reason.
> > Suppose we determine that we can take them out in a first strike. Then
> > what? Does seizing a single plane, detaining 24 people, and acting like
> > complete assholes with chips on their shoulder justify a nuking that
> > could result in the deaths of millions and perhaps start WWIII?
>
> You are lost in a conceptual fog over the precise meanings of "aggression
> " and
> "retaliation." Of course innocent people can die as a consequence of
> retaliation,
> but that is not its purpose - nor do such deaths turn retaliation into
> aggression.
But to the life-intrinsicist and rights-intrinsicist, they _do_.
> It is preposterous to seek a Platonic perfection where retaliation doesn'
> t cost
> innocent people anything. Tens of millions of Chinese would die; but their
> deaths
> would be on the heads of the original aggressor, the bandit regime in Peking.
> It
> is the bandit regime's fault and its fault alone if it creates a situation
> where
> Americans must retaliate to preserve values that are essential to a civil
> ized,
> human existence.
>
> If you insist on Platonic standards of retaliation, you might as well bec
> ome a
> pacifist and volunteer to become a slave of the Commies. There is no form of
> retaliation that does not create risks for innocents, so you would be pre
> cluded
> from taking any action to enforce the rights of Americans.
That's the logic of life and rights being intrinsic. I think
that's exactly the source of his "conceptual fog".
> On the other hand, if there is a level of aggression where you would be
> willing to
> violate your "no harm to innocents" rule, then tell us how many Americans
> have to
> be grabbed or how much American territory has to be taken before you would
> launch a
> first strike against the Peking bandit regime - and tell us by what
> principle you
> arrived at that number.
He's been challenged on just this point before, re openness to the
suggestion of nuking terrorist thugs. An intrinsicist in theory
is a utilitarian in practice. If lives have an intrinsic measure,
then in a situation where we need to balance some lives against
others for some reason (including thug regimes having introduced
force such that _someone_ will have to suffer), we thereby must
add them up in some fashion when balancing interests. This of
course is a sign of a morality of self-sacrifice, not of
self-interest.
There being in fact no such measure by which we can add up human
life, an intrinsicist in theory is perforce also a subjectivist
in practice. How greatly a retaliatory act of anti-aggression
_disturbs_ him becomes the criterion. To weigh human lives
against other human lives outside the principled framework of
self-interest and the protection of a free society, is to weigh
contradictory _emotions_ -- oblivious to the fact, in your words,
that "The slightest breach of principle in this regard only
invites a loss of liberty by gradual degrees".
-- Dean
Tym Parsons
<snip erroneous speculation>
> It would, of course, be simplest to agree to disagree.
Copout. This implies that philosophical truths are dependent on an
idiosyncratic personal perspective rather than knowledge common to all
laymen. Which is of course false.
Tym Parsons
6079 Smith W
In article <3AD21E3B...@yahoo.com>, Tym Parsons
<tym_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Face the fact that the entire world is *not* going to end up worshipping at
the temple of Ayn Rand, no matter how hard you try.
And why are objectivists all so crushingly arrogant? That's what i'm
investigating next.
fizz...@freedom.net
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > On 7 Apr 2001, R Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?
> > >
> > > I do not know of any previous instance in which Mr. Speicher has been
> > > anything other than forthright in stating his views under his own name.
> >
> > Not quite the case, Richard. Although Reed, as usual, is entirely
> > mistaken, it is me who fabricated "The Fiz." It was a very
> > interesting experiment. It is quite amazing what a few well
> > chosen insults directed against "ARIans" and "Randroids" can
> > solicit in private e-mail from their enemies. What I learned was
> > truly fascinating.
> >
> > My personal apologies to Dean and Dave, both of whom I hope will
> > realize that none of what was said, was actually meant. I had to
> > appear as a rabid anti-"ARIan", anti-"Randroid" in order to be
> > brought into the fold.
>
> Not to worry. Hilarious! And you succeeded so well in the
> technique of studious evasion that I had no choice but to
> precipitously drop my attempt to get the Fizz to say anything at
> all of substance ("All Fizz and No Substance") such that there
> could be a conversation in the first place.
>
Yes indeed. I purposely drew attention to the fact that you changed the
name of the thread, and made it sound as if (in the contorted thought
and language of she/he/it of which I parody) that doing so was itself
another thing to condemn. As I said in another post (or, was that
S.S.?); once you assume her sense of self-loathing, it is quite a
natural consequence to hate and condemn everything of value.
Anyway, I'm glad I am forgiven, and I do hope Dave takes this in the
same vein as have you.
> At least _I_ got to formulate and say something of substance.
> That's what posting opportunities are for anyhow.
>
That's just your "Randroid" prejudice! :)
Have you noticed the recent Helen & Cathcart show which was playing
until recently on hpo? It was better than Seinfeld, and even funnier
than Steve Martin at the Academy Awards. Cathcart talking to himself as
"A is A Exterminators", then being befuddled by Helen's paranoia of
impersonations of the impersonator who impersonates...well, you know
what I mean. It's the noumenal world for Helen, and the usual confusion
for Cathcart. Kant's revenge!
> Oh, and welcome back....
Thanks, but I am just "Fizzing" through.
...The Fiz...
dbco...@webinbox.com
dark secret about Objectivism that you should know.
On September 6th, 1998, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's intellectual
heir and head of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), made the following
proposal:
"A massive attack should take out their leadership, their
industry, and inflict major population damage. It should leave
those countries reeling from the blow, so that when the world
looks they know this is the price -- annihilation is the only
way."
On May 4th, 2000, Dr. Stephen Speicher, an ARI supporter who posted
frequently to h.p.o. at the time, had his own variation of this:
"Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours
from my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At
that time I say we issue an ultimatum. We tell Iran that they
have forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of
them -- and completely cease all terrorist activities.
If they do not comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy
Teheran with a nuclear bomb."
Within two weeks of making this proposal, something like 19
Objectivists endorsed what came to be known as "Plan Speicher" to the
horror of just about everyone else here.
Just as disturbing was the refusal of the rival faction of
Objectivists to repudiate the use of nuclear weapons against civilian
population centers to inflict mass murder on a scale that is beyond
all compensation, as would be demanded under a genuinely egoistic
standard of justice. While many of them opposed Plan Speicher, they
still embrace the insane principle behind it - they merely differ with
respect to how trigger-happy they are.
So how is it that Objectivists, and particularly the most orthodox
faction among them, have become such a bunch of rabid Dr.
Strangeloves?
The answer is to be found in the writings of Ayn Rand. She not only
set the hawkish tone for Objectivists, but she also supplied the
nationalistic collectivist premise that permits them to rationalize
mass murder. Rand sounds like an individualist when she talks about
the non-initiation of force, but when it comes to dealing with
foreign states, it is clear that national collectives are what she
values.
In her inversion of individualist ethics, innocents living under a
dictatorship have no rights - at least not any rights that Objectivist
governments are bound to respect as long as the dictator remains
in power. The only concession she made to their rights is that after
a dictatorship is destroyed, the Objectivist victors should not turn
their nation into a colony and exploit it.
At a more fundamental level, Rand was consumed by the notion that
culture is centrally planned by Great Philosophers. In her "us vs.
them" philosophical melodrama of world history, national collectives
are surrogates for philosophical parties. America, for example, is a
somewhat corrupted product of Aristotle that will of course be
redeemed by Rand herself through her philosophical movement, while
Communist states represent the culmination of the profound evil of
Plato and Kant.
It is also characteristic of Rand's vision of a grand philosophical
struggle that deviations from Objectivism are intolerable. In other
words, philosophy is not merely a tool to improve the true believer's
own life; to save society from the scourge of altruism, the believer
must convert others and insist on their ideological purity as a
condition of doing business with them.
Over the years, rational people who were initially attracted to
Objectivism's egoistic window dressing have flinched at the extreme
intolerance and nationalistic malice inherent in her philosophy, and
have found the more orthodox followers of Rand's cult of death to be
utterly repulsive. Many of these dissenters refuse to give up the
Objectivist label, but don't be fooled. As well meaning as they are,
they don't represent the essence of Rand's thought. The lunatics who
want to wage nuclear war are the true Objectivists.
-Coop
__________________________________________
Sent using WebInbox. "Your email gateway."
Check us out at http://www.webinbox.com
Gaius Helen Mohiam
news:td4et23...@corp.supernews.com...
> Have you noticed the recent Helen & Cathcart show which was playing
> until recently on hpo? It was better than Seinfeld, and even funnier
> than Steve Martin at the Academy Awards.
Well, thank you very much. But you are too generous; our little interlude
was nothing compared to your parody of the "research scientist" at
http://photon.compbio.caltech.edu/~sjs/sound/ss1.rm . I wonder how you do
that; I think I could never perform at that level. Might have to do with the
fact that I am actually doing research. But as I said, as a clown, you do
have great potential.
> Cathcart talking to himself as
> "A is A Exterminators", then being befuddled by Helen's paranoia of
> impersonations of the impersonator who impersonates...well, you know
> what I mean. It's the noumenal world for Helen, and the usual confusion
> for Cathcart. Kant's revenge!
And it's the usual empty Randroid blather for Stephen, yes?
> Thanks, but I am just "Fizzing" through.
Awhh, and I had so hoped you would give me a helping hand with my physics.
You did promise!
And, my dear boy, please note that you cannot refuse to take my little
"Stephen-Speicher test", although you might think you could. Chris was right
in that respect. So, you are just "fizzing" through, is that right? Very
interesting. Too busy, I take it?
Well, so what do you think will be my evaluation of your test performance?
Maybe you can help us, and tell us what conclusions we should draw from your
conspicuous and so uncharacteristic silence. Unless you are too busy, of
course...
Love -- Helen.
fizz...@freedom.net
> Public wrote:
>
> >
> > In both proposals, force is not being initiated by the United States. It
> > is being
> > directed against aggressors who need to be destroyed; that makes it retal
> > iatory
> > force.
>
> Be warned from his history on this matter: Gardner is, shall we
> say, corrupted by a fixed idea that is in polar opposition to
> Objectivism: the intrinsic, contextless value of human life.
>
Yes, and the source of that is, quite simply, his very Christian view of
life. At base Gardner is just a Christian who stumbled upon a philosophy
of which he thinks he can pick and choose, and he is really more at home
with his fellow Christians than with all those "baby-killers" who abort,
and all the "murderers" who have the moral right to retaliate against
force. How very Christian of him.
...The Fiz...
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > I have not read your proposal, but the fact that we allowed --
> > nay, assisted -- Red China in becoming a nuclear power is a
> > national disgrace. I would have supported using whatever means of
> > force would be necessary to have kept nuclear weapons, and their
> > delivery systems, from the hands of this totalitarian regime. Had
> > we acted properly, in our own self interest, years ago, there
> > would be no discussion today of what to do about American
> > hostages in Red China.
>
> I totally agree; the Marxist savages in Peking should have been
> nuked many decades ago. The only things I would add are that
> their current nuclear force, though in the process of being
> modernized, is still vulnerable to a nuclear first strike, and
> that the urgent necessity of destroying them has been
> heightened by their new-found willingness to grab American
> hostages and seize American te rritory.
>
I see now that you are apparently working with a mistaken set of
facts. It is well-known in the Intelligence community -- and it
has been known for some time -- that Red China has several
thousand nuclear warheads, and at least twenty ICBMs with a range
of slightly over 8000 miles, capable then of reaching our
mainland. Unfortunately, we have lost the ability for nuclear
destruction of Red China without major nuclear consequences to
ourselves.
Dave O'Hearn
Communist? I find this a dangerous package deal. Yes, there are Communists
in China that are thoroughly evil people. There are also Communists,
environmentalists, journalists, and God knows what else in America that are
thoroughly evil people. It does happen that, at the moment, China's
government is doing some very bad things that threaten us. But take this as
an excuse to make the issue simple, "ChiComs vs. freedom-loving Americans",
and when your war is over, you'll find your country so intellectually
damaged that it isn't worth returning to. Fighting enemies is a necessary,
boring, painful deed required when they threaten us. It's nothing to get
excited about. And it may very well do more harm than good, if you give the
government "special powers" to fight the war, and get so pumped up with
patriotism that you forget to take the powers away when it's over.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Mark Sieving
>Pardon me for not being up on the latest slang, but what's a ChiCom? Chinese
>Communist?
Latest slang? That goes back to the Korean War.
Mark Sieving |"Fare forward, you who think that you are voyaging;
msieving | You are not those who saw the harbour
@ameritech.net | Receding, or those who will disembark."
| T.S. Eliot, "The Dry Salvages", III
Ken Gardner
> > Well, who are you exactly if you are not Chris Cathcart doing a
> > masterful parody of Betsy's husband?
> Who is John Galt?
Actually, I have a very good idea who you really are, although I'm not
yet fully certain. But I'll continue to play along as follows....
> >> ...cannot be automatically linked to my proposal for dealing with the
> >> Peking bandit regime.
> > Sure it can. In both cases, the proposal involves the initiation of
> > deadly force against millions of totally innocent civilians.
> In both proposals, force is not being initiated by the United States. It is
> being directed against aggressors who need to be destroyed; that makes it
> retaliatory force.
Let's come down from the clouds and examine the actual facts. The
Chinese government seized a U.S. plane and is detaining its crew against
their will -- an initiation of force that the United States should
certainly punish in an appropriate manner (which need not be military in
nature). My understanding is that there are approximately 1.3 billion
people in China. The vast majority of these 1.3 billion people are not
members of the Chinese government or even of the Communist Party, in
all likelihood do not support the Chinese government any further than
they are forced to do so, and in any event have no moral responsibility
whatsoever for the chosen actions of their government with respect to
this incident. To kill millions of these innocent people in a nuclear
attack, especially in the face of diplomatic and military alternatives
that would also punish the guilty while minimizing or eliminating harm
to the innocent, would be to violate the principle that retaliatory
force is proper only against those who initiate force -- and constitute
sheer lunacy and mass murder.
> > Suppose we determine that we can take them out in a first strike. Then
> > what? Does seizing a single plane, detaining 24 people, and acting like
> > complete assholes with chips on their shoulder justify a nuking that
> > could result in the deaths of millions and perhaps start WWIII?
> Then what? Then we have a ticker-tape parade down Wall Street, since we will
> have won WWIII, just like we won WWI and WWII.
> You are lost in a conceptual fog over the precise meanings of "aggression
> " and
> "retaliation."
This is too funny....With all due respect, I don't think I'm the one
with a few screws loose here.
[...]
> > PS: If you are not Chris, maybe you are dbcooper in disguise. Or Steve
> > Davis.
> Or Ken Gardner.
Most emphatically not me.
Ken
Gaius Helen Mohiam
news:3e876ad15134dd0f...@anon.xg.nu...
> If anybody still thinks that the ChiComs don't deserve nuclear
> incineration, I would like to hear the reason why.
Because most of us have an IQ at least slightly above the one of a cucumber?
Because some of us value human life? Because some of us are not insane?
Want more reasons? -- Helen.
Robert J. Kolker
Gaius Helen Mohiam wrote:
> Because some of us value human life? Because some of us are not insane?
>
> Want more reasons? -- Helen.
This raises the general question: At what point and for what
cause is a war worth it? When is it proper to start the fighting
and the dying?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Public " wrote:
>
> Of course, they have a lot of stuff that can't reach America that
> we would still need to deal with, and obviously there is a risk that
> even the best-laid plans may go awry and the ChiComs may get
> an ICBM or two off the ground. We may lose a city or two - but that
> is a far more reasonable risk to take than waiting until ~they~ are
> ready to strike first, which is their stated military doctrine in
> case of war with America.
Given that the Chinese are not about to launch an attack against
the U.S. with destruction or conquest in mind, it would be immoral,
not to say insane, to sacrifice a city or two, as you put it for a
situtation
that will be cleared up in at most a month with no effusion of blood.
You are ready to commit human sacrifice because of an ideological
bug you have up your arse. That is not only insane, it is just plain
wrong.
If we are going to fight and some of us die, let it be for a sufficient
cause.
Bob Kolker
Jddescript
>From: dbco...@webinbox.com
>Date: 4/9/01 5:01 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <200104092301...@webinbox.com>
>
>For those of you who might be new to this newsgroup, there is a deep
>dark secret about Objectivism that you should know.
>
]
]
You obviously chose your assummed name well as indicating a thief of human
wealth and happiness. You attack Ayn Rand for standing intellectually on the
side of free people everywhere against the forces of socialist enslavment and
dictatorship. Your "secret" that the stalin left socialists that Ayn Rand
escaped as a young girl to become a free American and the right socialist of
hitler germany were "really" just peace loving average people and not socialist
collectives of enslavment is such a huge socialist lie that
only db cooper would expect to get away with this lying loot
You were able to socialist propogandize the Russian rubble as having a value
1000 times the reality and only Ayn Rand could spot your socialist lies in the
past. Now you seek revenge for the exposure, Those of US who know the history
of the last century of your socialist waves of world take over and invasion
attempts have nothing but contempt for your attack on Ayn Rand and our past and
continuing freedom efforts. JD
]
]
----------------------------------------------------------
Jddescript
>Date: 4/9/01 8:25 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3AD26F0E...@mediaone.net>
]
]
The Ayn Rand Theory [ART], as with the American Constitution that it
theoretically formulates, is a purely defensive theory. If the
hole-in-trhe-wall gang has started it's invasion march into the valley we can
stop them early in the pass but going around with first strikes to purify the
world by some criterion is a socialist alibi and not part of ART or the
American Way. The extent that the socialist manipulators [socman] have
justified external take overs and such is a measure of the overall socialist
wave of TAKING America. An early example was wilson, in the first wave of
socialist TAKING of America in the 1900 - 1920 time period. He originally
promised to keep America away from the king's men's gassed trenches of WW I and
to not save his king's men comrades. JD
]
]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dean Sandin
Why are people like you all so crushingly unable to cope with
ideas? Not that it's worth investigating....
--Dean
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > has been known for some time -- that Red China has several
> > thousand nuclear warheads, and at least twenty ICBMs with a
> > range of slightly over 8000 miles, capable then of reaching
> > our mainland. Unfortunately, we have lost the ability for
> > nuclear destruction of Red China without major nuclear
> > consequences to ourselves.
>
> No, I am aware of the nature of the ICBM force. In fact, I
> think I addressed this concern earlier in a reply to Bob
> Kolker.
>
I have not followed the thread -- I scanned only a few posts --
so I apologize if you are re-covering the same ground.
> The 24 or so single warhead ICBMs are in fixed silos located in
> four launch complexes, with an old type of phased array radar
> serving as the early warning system. While these ICBMs are in
> a launch-on- warning posture, America has a very impressive
> array of weapons delivery systems that could evade the radar
> and take out the silos before the ChiComs ever knew what hit
> them.
>
If you know this much, then you should be aware of the reports of
up to 100 or more additional ICBMs that are not in silos, but
buried deep in underground tunnels. To detect and kill a missile
in a deep underground tunnel is notoriously difficult; the
premise of the Chinese would presumably be to survive a first
strike and retaliate on the second wave.
> The fact that these are not mobile missiles, that there are
> only a few of them, and that they are not protected by adequate
> early warning systems, means that America can take them out
> with a nuclear first strike with a very high probability of
> total success. Victory is within the realm of possibility
> here; the only question is whether America has the will to do
> the right thing or not.
>
Unfortunately I think that is a debatable issue, and should
probably be debated by the Intelligence folk who are much more
knowledgable than myself, and presumably more knowledgable than
you too. I am entirely sympathetic to the goal -- and we
certainly have the moral right to do so -- but I am not convinced
that our self interest is _best_ served in that manner.
On the other hand, the potential threat from Red China is so
great that such scenarios as you suggest must certainly be
investigated. The decade after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Russia
had an astronomical growth in their nuclear arsenal. The evidence
certainly indicates that China is moving in that direction, and
within a decade we could easily lose any edge which we currently
possess. Unlike the Russians, many believe that Red China would
be willing to suffer a major strike if they could still prevail.
500 million, or more, lost may be nothing to the PLA, with a
country exceeding a billion.
In summary, I am not unsympathetic to your concerns -- and indeed
our interests may yet be best served by such an approach -- but
the issue is far, far less clear cut than the threat to obliterate
Iran or Afghanistan in order to stop terrorism. The moral right
to take such actions is not at issue, but the practical concerns
present a formidable problem.
> Of course, they have a lot of stuff that can't reach America
> that we would still need to deal with, and obviously there is a
> risk that even the best-laid plans may go awry and the ChiComs
> may get an ICBM or two off the ground. We may lose a city or
> two - but that is a far more reasonable risk to take than
> waiting until ~they~ are ready to strike first, which is their
> stated military doctrine in case of war with America.
>
> It may interest you to learn that General Xiong, the ChiCom who
> has taken charge of the Hainan operation on behalf of the
> Central Military Commission, is also the character who wrote an
> article in a military journal (I think it was back in 1996)
> specifically threatening to nuke Los Angeles if America tried
> to defend Taiwan.
>
"In the 1950s, you three times threatened nuclear
strikes on China, and you could do that because we
couldn't hit back. Now we can. So you are not going to
threaten us again because, in the end, you care a lot
more about Los Angeles than Taipei."
My license plate says: ILOVELA
> The ChiCom savages have already fired the first shot in a
> long-planned war against America and have seized their first
> bit of American territory. In your estimation, what do you
> think will happen if America doesn't fight back with every
> means at its disposal? Are you willing to surrender Taiwan,
> Korea, and Japan in order to avoid any risk of nuclear
> consequences?
>
Yes, if it were true that such actions truly avoided a nuclear
confrontation. But in reality that would just have the opposite
effect, since Red China will just continue to grow stronger,
militarily. Our focus should not be the protection of Taiwan and
Korea and Japan, but the safety of our people to live free from
coercion in the form of a nuclear threat. That is why, to that
end, I favor stopping any non-free country from developing
nuclear weapons, with the threat of whatever force is necessary
to achieve that goal. Again, had this been our policy in the
1950s, we would not now be having this discussion, and would
instead probably be surfing the net as we drove in our flying
cars.
Robert J. Kolker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> coercion in the form of a nuclear threat. That is why, to that
> end, I favor stopping any non-free country from developing
> nuclear weapons, with the threat of whatever force is necessary
> to achieve that goal. Again, had this been our policy in the
> 1950s, we would not now be having this discussion, and would
> instead probably be surfing the net as we drove in our flying
> cars.
Shuda, wuda, cuda. Too late. What do we do NOW?
Bob Kolker
f
t
b
f
t
b
f
t
b
6079 Smith W
----------
In article <3AD2F1E9...@bellsouth.net>, Dean Sandin
<dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Excuse me while I collapse in hysterics. You're telling me objectivists are
open to ideas? Oh, that's good. I have to remember that one.
The reason most people are not open to Objectivist propoganda is we're not
all snarling semi-deranged nationalistic Amerika Uber Alles anti-communist
anti-gay anti-free-thought ethnocentric arch-Imperialistic arrogant
garbage-rhetoric-spewing dogma-parroting intolerant narrow-minded unthinking
Rand nazis.
That's why.
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AD30C8E...@mediaone.net...
> Shuda, wuda, cuda. Too late. What do we do NOW?
How about approaching it as an issue of principle for once, that whatever we
decide to do - once and for all - sends the message that we will not
tolerate anyone taking Americans hostage.
Then perhaps we can envision a future where we are not constantly dealing
with the consequences of our past appeasements
Fred Weiss
Stephen Speicher
>
> I hope that your husband and all who have supported him in the
> face of all the emotional rantings about Iran would give
> careful consideration to my proposal.
>
I have not read your proposal, but the fact that we allowed --
nay, assisted -- Red China in becoming a nuclear power is a
national disgrace. I would have supported using whatever means of
force would be necessary to have kept nuclear weapons, and their
delivery systems, from the hands of this totalitarian regime. Had
we acted properly, in our own self interest, years ago, there
would be no discussion today of what to do about American
hostages in Red China.
Stephen
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >R Lawrence wrote:
>
> >>I do not know of any previous instance in which Mr. Speicher has been
> >>anything other than forthright in stating his views under his own name.
> >
> >Not quite the case, Richard. Although Reed, as usual, is entirely
> >mistaken, it is me who fabricated "The Fiz."
>
> Ah, but "The Fiz" was not stating your own views. The accusation in this
> thread was that you were anonymously posting views that you agreed with,
> not mimicking views that you do not agree with. So I was still correct,
> unless you have other secret identities. (Actually, I was technically right
> in any case, since my statement was that "I do not know of ..." -- but I'm
> not getting quite that picky.)
>
Upon reflection, you are technically correct.
> > "The Fiz" was a unification of them all,
> >and he apparently was welcomed with open arms.
>
> I started mostly ignoring "The Fiz" after a few posts. I guess now I'll
> have to go back and read them all more closely, just for kicks.
>
More importantly, would you like to purchase the CD containing
the fascinating e-mails I received, from all my "friends"? :)
...The Fiz...
T
H
E
F
I
Z
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > has been known for some time -- that Red China has several
> > thousand nuclear warheads, and at least twenty ICBMs with a
> > range of slightly over 8000 miles, capable then of reaching
> > our mainland. Unfortunately, we have lost the ability for
> > nuclear destruction of Red China without major nuclear
> > consequences to ourselves.
>
coercion in the form of a nuclear threat. That is why, to that
end, I favor stopping any non-free country from developing
nuclear weapons, with the threat of whatever force is necessary
to achieve that goal. Again, had this been our policy in the
1950s, we would not now be having this discussion, and would
instead probably be surfing the net as we drove in our flying
cars.
Stephen
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > I have not read your proposal, but the fact that we allowed --
> > nay, assisted -- Red China in becoming a nuclear power is a
> > national disgrace. I would have supported using whatever means of
> > force would be necessary to have kept nuclear weapons, and their
> > delivery systems, from the hands of this totalitarian regime. Had
> > we acted properly, in our own self interest, years ago, there
> > would be no discussion today of what to do about American
> > hostages in Red China.
>
> I totally agree; the Marxist savages in Peking should have been
> nuked many decades ago. The only things I would add are that
> their current nuclear force, though in the process of being
> modernized, is still vulnerable to a nuclear first strike, and
> that the urgent necessity of destroying them has been
> heightened by their new-found willingness to grab American
> hostages and seize American te rritory.
>
I see now that you are apparently working with a mistaken set of
facts. It is well-known in the Intelligence community -- and it
has been known for some time -- that Red China has several
thousand nuclear warheads, and at least twenty ICBMs with a range
of slightly over 8000 miles, capable then of reaching our
mainland. Unfortunately, we have lost the ability for nuclear
destruction of Red China without major nuclear consequences to
ourselves.
Stephen
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3AD30C8E...@mediaone.net...
>
> > Shuda, wuda, cuda. Too late. What do we do NOW?
>
> How about approaching it as an issue of principle for once, that whatever we
> decide to do - once and for all - sends the message that we will not
> tolerate anyone taking Americans hostage.
Let me see. This is nukem time. With a possible loss of
several million American citizens because we cannot stop
all deployments of atomics by the Chinese. So we accept
several millions dead and or wounded.
Now are the Chinese currently threatening to attack our
cities? That is a simple yes or no. Are the Chinese interfering
with civillian commerce on the high seas or in the air. That
is a simple yes or no. Are the Chinese currently setting out
to invade us and attempt to conquer us? That is a simple
yes or no.
If you cannot come up with any yes responses, then pray tell
why should Americans die over a matter of form. On the other
hand if the Chinese are attacking the vital interests of Americans,
to wit their safety and commerce, then better now than later.
Are there lesser degrees of force we might use to convey a
clear message to the Chinese that we will not tolerate an attack
or threat on our vital interests. Has anyone thought of that.
Is it all or nothing?
>
> Then perhaps we can envision a future where we are not constantly dealing
> with the consequences of our past appeasements
>
But we can visit the graves of the American dead. What is worth many
American lives? This is not a rhetorical question. This has to do with
setting up honest to god thresholds beyond which we make serious
war.
Bob Kolker
>
> Fred Weiss
Tym Parsons
> Excuse me while I collapse in hysterics. You're telling me objectivists are
> open to ideas? Oh, that's good. I have to remember that one.
> The reason most people are not open to Objectivist propoganda is we're not
> all snarling semi-deranged nationalistic Amerika Uber Alles anti-communist
> anti-gay anti-free-thought ethnocentric arch-Imperialistic arrogant
> garbage-rhetoric-spewing dogma-parroting intolerant narrow-minded unthinking
> Rand nazis.
> That's why.
Yr high dude.
Tym Parsons
Dean Sandin
Dead-on satire of anti-Objectivists! Yes, they are that foolish.
Congratulations.
--Dean
dbco...@webinbox.com
> dbcooper:
>
> While I don't agree with the recent single-strike-annihilation-by
> -atomic-bomb theory that has been promoted by some of the leading
> advocates of ARI, I totally disagree with your interpretation of Ayn
> Rand's views. You don't have an integrated sense of her context of
> understanding. You have made some factual errors, and the
> conclusions that you have drawn are incorrect as a result.
I made my case in loving detail in response to the madness of Plan
Speicher. You'll just have to dig into the archives.
> To be seen as a gross malinterpreter of Rand's ideas by highly
> knowledgeable Objectivist knurrs is to be seen as a fool.
>
> To provide wrong conclusions that are based on incorrect facts
> is the be seen as a double fool.
Who cares what the true believers think of me? I don't care about
them. I care about the more rational people who are in danger of
being fooled by Rand's fraudulent egoism.
Doesn't it rattle your cage just a little bit that the most stridently
orthodox faction of Objectivists is the one advocating nuclear war?
Doesn't it also bother you at least a little bit that the allegedly
more tolerant faction hasn't repudiated the premise from which this
insanity has been derived?
> I suggest that you select the specific paragraphs that Rand wrote,
> and you should develop your own factual and well-reasoned criticisms
> upon them.
Been there. Done that. For the most part, I'm just reminding the
fence sitters left over from the Plan Speicher flame wars of their
evasions. They already know what my arguments are.
> Also, your emotional statements are plainly wrong. I suggest that
> if you want to be anti-Objectivist, why don't you become a revisionist,
> instead?
While we're at it, why don't you present your well-reasoned case for
your interpretation of Rand vis-a-vis the ARIans? The joke here is
that they can cite Rand chapter and verse in defense of the view that
the U.S. has an unqualified right to attack dictator nations, and you
can cite nothing that shows Rand as having any moral concern for
innocent civilians being killed by the USA in any of its wars.
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AD33E58...@mediaone.net...
> What is worth many American lives? This is not a rhetorical question.
This has to do with
> setting up honest to god thresholds beyond which we make serious
> war.
The problem is we get to the point where you may have to risk American lives
when, if you had acted properly from the start, that would not be required
now. What would it have cost us in American lives to have *not* helped the
Soviet Union during WWll or *not* given them Eastern Europe? None (I think).
That, plus some other proper actions, might have prevented Korea and Vietnam
which cost us 100's of thousands of lives.
But all of this represents a certain amount of context dropping because an
America which would have acted appropriately toward communism early on would
have been a very different America - which would have meant a very different
intellectual climate not just here but also in the world. A world perhaps
where communism would have been unlikely to begin with.
So if you are asking what would I like to see George Bush do - given George
Bush as he is - assuming the hostages aren't returned very soon - given the
context of America as it is right now.... I'd like to see him do something
surprisingly firm. I don't think it's likely but I would find it
encouraging. If it provokes a negative editorial in the NY Times and gets
Dan Rather into a dither it was probably OK. In an ideal world it would
upset Ken Gardner - "Gee I used to think George Bush was the greatest guy
but since some 'innocent' Chinese were threatened or actually killed and
with this new revelation ...well, I want everyone to know I'm no longer
*that* kind of Republican". Than it was probably exactly the right thing to
do (but sadly more than we could realistically hope for). Anything less and
you can count on us being back again in this or an escalated situation in
the not too distant future.
At what point are you, Bob, prepared to take a stand? Or are you continually
stuck in, well, we shoulda, coulda...but now we can't. At what point do
*you* give them 24 hours - or else?
We cannot apologize or make any concessions and we can't let our hostages
sit there indefinitely...so?
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> The problem is we get to the point where you may have to risk American lives
> when, if you had acted properly from the start, that would not be required
> now. What would it have cost us in American lives to have *not* helped the
> Soviet Union during WWll or *not* given them Eastern Europe? None (I think).
> That, plus some other proper actions, might have prevented Korea and Vietnam
> which cost us 100's of thousands of lives.
You are fifty years in the past. We are living now, with all the consequences
of prior errors. What do we do now? What thresholds do we establish
beyond which we do serious killing and serious dying.
The past is gone and cannot be changed. The present and the future we
can do something about. Please focus on the * real * problem. O.K.?
>
> At what point are you, Bob, prepared to take a stand? Or are you continually
> stuck in, well, we shoulda, coulda...but now we can't. At what point do
> *you* give them 24 hours - or else?
If they threaten our cities, we blow up their brand new dam on
the Yangtze. If they come to invade and conquer we wipe out
a good part of their population and we take our lumps doing it.
If they interfere with commerce on the high seas we respond
tit for tat. A ship stopped, we stop one of theirs . A ship sunk,
we sink two of theirs. We can also deliver some nifty weapons
to Taiwan and let the Taiwanese give the PRC some nightmares.
We can tarriff or embargo their goods from trade with the U.S.
(I don't like this, since the Govt should not interfere with the
commerce of private firms unless we really are at war).
I do not think the PRC wold be happy, if we delivered
missiles to Taiwan that could do major damage on
mainland targets.
These are some of the things we can do to the PRC short
of all out nuclear war.
>
>
> We cannot apologize or make any concessions and we can't let our hostages
> sit there indefinitely...so?
We see our people by the end of the month or sooner, or Taiwan will
get some real pretty gifts. Or we can raise tarriffs on them. Is there
some way we can take 24 of theirs? If that does not do it then do
we go to War. Remember, these folks have deliverable nuclear
weapons (not as many as we do, but they can leave some crater
on our coasts).
Bob Kolker
6079 Smith W
----------
In article <3AD35F58...@bellsouth.net>, Dean Sandin
<dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Thank you for proving me right.
6079
Dean Sandin
> We cannot apologize or make any concessions and we can't let our hostages
> sit there indefinitely...so?
Sure we can apologize, Fred. We do it in a manner that makes it
look like the ChiComs are getting a reluctant maximum from us.
Not too easily; why raise suspicions or prompt them to demand
even more? Just let them realize they've got what they can, and
get the airmen and women out of there.
Then:
1) Prepare, without letting on, to close our embassy. Declare
that all US citizens must leave China within a week if they
wish to be out of danger and subject to our protection. Make
it clear that other foreigners too are there at their own risk.
Somewhat after one week later:
2) Pull out the skeleton force of US diplomats remaining.
2) As they leave ChiCom airspace, picked up by a formidable escort
of Navy fighters from carriers in position, commit to
expeditious delivery of really effective military hardware and
training to Taiwan. E-Z payment terms.
3) Thirty minutes later, cream the entire airfield on the island,
with the US plane at ground zero. NO warning. (It may not go
anywhere that soon unless the ChiComs are too nervous. If it
does go that soon, cream it where they took it (or its pieces),
or cream something just as suitable, like an entire air
squadron. Not with a nuke. Why should we? Really massive
explosives can be delivered reliably, accurately, and without
usefully prior detection.
Oh, and Bush goes before Congress in a joint session appearance to
identify the ChiCom authorities as face-losing total fools if they
really think that "apologies" made to criminal regimes under
duress are worth even the air molecules needed to convey them.
Congress declares a form of war on China, stating that it's being
done exactly to the extent that China already declared war on us
with its air piracy and taking of prisoners, such that if they do
nothing more with military force, including threatening postures
and movements, then we do nothing more with military force either;
and stating the doctrine of disproportional response (which is
that actions by the enemy are punished to an extent that makes it
impossible that they can ever expect not to be left in a
considerably worse position when taking more action).
Of course, in the long run, highly effective ICBM defenses are
utterly required.
Hmmm...a new thought. Offer Taiwan a Commonwealth status, a la
Puerto Rico?
--Dean
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AD36E59...@mediaone.net...
> Remember, these folks have deliverable nuclear
> weapons (not as many as we do, but they can leave some crater
> on our coasts).
This is yet another example of our atrocious foreign policy since WW11. If
true, we never should have allowed that to happen. We can't be held hostage
to the nuclear capability of dictatorships. The Soviet Union kept the world
in a permanent state of nuclear terror for 40 years. We can't repeat that
with the Chinese. I would consider it of the highest military importance to
either (or both) develop some kind of fully effective shield against it
and/or destroy or at least minimize their capability.
Now, on top of everything else they have sucked us into a major economic
relationship. Supposedly this was going to promote further freedom in China.
Has it? Their latest step in the direction of greater freedom was to crack
down on a growing religious organization. This after their taking over Hong
Kong without a peep from us. All we've seemed to accomplish is to increase
their belligerence.
There is a basic error here. The assumption has been that they are like us,
that if we are nice to them, reach out to be friendly, trade with them,
expose them to our values that they will reciprocate. Obviously their
response is the opposite. They think we are fools.
Fred Weiss
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > If you know this much, then you should be aware of the
> > reports of up to 100 or more additional ICBMs that are not in
> > silos, but buried deep in underground tunnels. To detect and
> > kill a missile in a deep underground tunnel is notoriously
> > difficult; the premise of the Chinese would presumably be to
> > survive a first strike and retaliate on the second wave.
>
> Setting my questions concerning the credibility of these
> reports for the moment, I must point out that it is no easy
> task to get missiles out of a tunnel in the midst of a nuclear
> barrage and fire them at a suitable target, especially after
> the C^4I infrastructure has been obliterated.
>
First, I'm afraid you are mistaken to assume that the C 4I will
be "obliterated." I wish it went from your mouth to God's ears. :)
Also, the reports of the Chinese digging tunnels in mountains
goes back some forty years; more than enough time to dig
literally thousands of miles of interconnecting tunnels. If you
study the effect of differently sized nuclear weapons on tunnels
potentially a mile or so deep, it is not a winning scenario for
wiping them out, at least not a practical one. We ourselves have
looked at this approach for our own arsenal, which requires a
remarkably low-tech procedure to dig out.
Many years ago I was a consultant to the Defense Nuclear Agency,
and I modeled the physics of a height of burst nuclear explosion
and calculated the static and dynamic pressures throughout the
field, as a function of time. This is the sort of data which
goes into the planning of the attack scenarios, and I can assure
you that many, many scenarios are evaluated by the people with
the best of the enemy Intelligence. It truly is a pity that we
did not act in the past, when it would have been so easy to
accomplish our goal. As Fred Weiss has pointed out several times,
it is precisely because we have failed to act in the past that we
are forced to deal with a worse problem today. It is the
sophomoric thinking of the apologists and the Ken Gardner's who
sacrifice our long range benefits to their short range
rationalizations.
> >
> > In summary, I am not unsympathetic to your concerns -- and
> > indeed our interests may yet be best served by such an
> > approach -- but the issue is far, far less clear cut than the
> > threat to obliterate Iran or Afghanistan in order to stop
> > terrorism. The moral right to take such actions is not at
> > issue, but the practical concerns present a formidable
> > problem.
>
> Well said. I can only add that Iran is going to acquire its
> own nukes in the near future, so the need for nuking Iran is
> extremely urgent too. Iran is a textbook case of why economic
> sanctions and unprincipled bargaining with dictatorships
> doesn't work.
>
Yes, of course. However, the _threat_ of doing so would be more
than enough if they knew we meant what we said. Again, it is the
apologists and the "Christian" feelings of the Ken Gardners who
make us impotent to act.
> You understand both the moral issues and many of the relevant
> facts, and I am delighted to see how clearly you express them
> in this forum. It is a refreshing contrast to the way the
> snarling panda hugging pseudo-Objectivists and
> anti-Objectivists have been reacting to my posts.
>
I really did not read the previous posts, but I quite understand
what you say.
> Speaking of them (if it is permissible to speak of
> non-entities), don't let them drive you away from h.p.o. with
> their hysterical rants. Don't be discouraged by their raging
> emotionalism or their concrete-bound disconnect from abstract
> thought. You are at your finest when you show us that are
> keeping your head while they are losing theirs, so keep up the
> good work!
>
Thanks for the kind words, but 'they' don't drive me away. I find
them rather funny. It's just that I have better things to do.