Welcome to my blog. My name is Steve Giardina. I consider myself to be a student of the philosophy of Objectivism, and these are my many thoughts. Feel free to leave comments, as well as your opinions.
"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours." Ayn Rand
11/3/2003
President Bush stated today that the U.S. will never run from Iraq.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Faced with a mounting military and civilian death toll and stiffening guerrilla resistance, President Bush vowed on Monday that the United States would not run from its “vital” mission in Iraq.
If only Bush would have this convinction in dealing with Iran and North Korea, we would be much better off.
Comments
The URL to TrackBack this entry is:
http://rationalegoist.rationalmind.net/b2trackback.php/163
Leave a Comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <b><i><strong><em><code><blockquote><p><br><strike><a>
“If only Bush would have this convinction in dealing with Iran and North Korea, we would be much better off"Steve??
A)how bout this…
“If ONLY CHINA ETC… would have this conviction in
dealing with NK”
b)Or this….
“THANK GOD ISRAEL HAS THE CONVICTION TO DEAL THAT WAY WITH IRAN”
Comment by 11/4/2003 @ 11:19 pm
Please limit your comments to rational discussion, not rambling nonsense. Thank you.
Comment by 11/5/2003 @ 12:57 pm
Steve…
Didnt mean to post inappropriate content on your website… I was not familiar enough wit your site to discern the difference between my sometimes twisted sense of humour, and what you will allow in “rational debate”
Here are my comments re-translated…
1."“If ONLY CHINA ETC… would have this conviction in
dealing with NK”
What I mean by this is that Bush IS showing Conviction in getting Japan, China, SK, Russia to deal with the problem. Just because NK needs to be confronted, doesnt Mean WE have to be the ones to do it… One has to pick ones battles of course (sometimes literally) and CHINA has many reasons/ability to pressure NK (its growing economic ties to the US, it is also the number one provider of Aid to NK, ) so too does depression Crippled Japan, which is likely to bow to us to some extent. There are two peices of evidence that Bush’s approach to NK is working….
1)Aziz’s recent allegations that NK didnt send Iraq Missiles cause of US pressure.
2.NK finally bows to MultiLateral talks…
“b)Or this….
“THANK GOD ISRAEL HAS THE CONVICTION TO DEAL THAT WAY WITH IRAN”
Translate this as… If the United States can rely on Isreal to confront Iran (as it did with Iraq’s facilities in 1981) and It appears to have hit Syria as a warning shot to Iran… Why should the United States blow the small amount of leverage it has on Iran NOT to interfere with Iraq’s internal politics?
Comment by 11/5/2003 @ 4:10 pm
As to your first statement about NK, I would NEVER trust the security and safety of the U.S. to a communist dictatorship (China). Placing our security in the hands of others is a very dangerous proposition. Also, what military power does Japan, Russia, and SK have that could possibly threaten the madman at the head of NK? Additionally, why should we sanction a dictatorship that murders and tortures its citizens? Why should we sanction a dictatorship that has slave labor and concentration camps in its borders? Why should we sanction a dictatorship that is developing nuclear weapons with the capability of hitting the U.S. and being sold to terrorist groups? Why should we place the outcome of this imminent threat against us in the hands of foreign nations that can do little or nothing to stop it?
As to your second comment, I think you need to actually read my posts. I DO NOT think that the U.S. should rely on Israel to confront Iran. In fact, as I have stated repeatedly on this blog of mine, I think it was a mistake to invade Iraq, and instead, we should have invaded Iran. Also, do you honestly think that Iran is not interfering in Iraq’s internal politics? Do you honestly think that the foreign terrorists attack our troops in Iraq do not come from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.? From now on, I would suggest refraining from uninformed comments.
The purpose of this post was to indicate that there is hope that if Iran acquires the capability to produce nuclear weapons, Israel will eliminate it. This is good news because of the fact that Bush is now explicitly cowering to our terrorist enemies.
Comment by 11/5/2003 @ 4:49 pm
“I would NEVER trust the security and safety of the U.S. to a communist dictatorship (China). ”
On what grounds, moral, pragmatic??? We have our share of strings we can pull with the chinese to ensure their pragmatic compliance on this issue (trade relations, embarassing on a global forum re; human rights, the India-Pakistan-China triangle which we now have enhanced influence in, many things) If its moral grounds, we would have to stop our support for other socialist dictatorships/ogliarchies such as SA, which strategically speaking we dont have the option of doing right now, because we have backed so many for so long.
“Also, what military power does Japan, Russia, and SK have that could possibly threaten the madman at the head of NK? “Steve
Not enough, nor will they ever have enough until the United States stops holding their hand through every one of his Fits. If you’ll notice, the US hasnt changed our strategic footprint there, only changed the emphasis on who should talk to him.
“Additionally, why should we sanction a dictatorship that murders and tortures its citizens? ”
A) Thats laughable, think about the History of Iran, Iraq, egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc etc etc.
b) Anyway, Multilateral diplomatic pressure is far from sanctioning.. Its more like an implied threat
“Why should we place the outcome of this imminent threat against us in the hands of foreign nations that can do little or nothing to stop it? ”
A)me thinks perhaps that you have confused grave with imminent. Kim might be crazy, but hes no dummy, hes been playing this card for years, with some sucess. Hes not about to give up his ace.
B) China can do quite a lot to deal with this threat. They can pull their financial help to him tommorow. They ALSO have one of the largest militaries in the world (lest you forget) its in NOBODY’s interest to have a Nuclear peninsula, and as soon as the big boys over their realize that, theyll get serious.
“I DO NOT think that the U.S. should rely on Israel to confront Iran. In fact, as I have stated repeatedly on this blog of mine, I think it was a mistake to invade Iraq, and instead, we should have invaded Iran.”
A)sorry, didnt see that.. care to hint where on your EXTENSIVE blog, this might be?
Comment by 11/5/2003 @ 5:33 pm
9/9/03 - U.S Foreign Policy Has Failed
I’d also suggest using the search bar on the right hand side of my blog and type in U.S. Foreign Policy. The majority of things I write about on here have been comments on U.S. Foreign Policy and government actions.
My thoughts on foreign policy are very much in line with the op-eds you can find Steve Giardina 11/6/2003 @ 3:44 pm
Steve…
a)I read your entry, and it was quite well worded.
b) My suspicion is that you are well within your intellectual comfort zone here on your blog. But as a philosophy student I am willing to bet that you endorse the idea of stepping outside of your comfort zone. I wonder if I might be able to convince you to poke around on the discussion boards on www.motherjones.com (a sort of hippie haven) Admittedly the level of discourse there varies widely, but there are the occasional intelligent posters, and if nothing else, you can really piss off some hippies.
c)I did respond to your FP opinion… check it out if you have the time
Comment by 11/7/2003 @ 2:12 pm
As an Objectivist and an advocate of reason, I refuse to discuss philosophy with anyone who explicitly rejects reason as a means to obtaining knowledge. When a person dismisses reason in favor of faith, feeling, or any other version of “just knowing” it is impossible to convince them of anything, thus, discussion with them is useless. For example, say that Person A claims to “just know” that God exists, and I say that since there is no evidence that God exists, it is an arbitrary claim and therefore dismissed. If Person A continues to insist that they “just know” that God exists, I have no means of persuading them otherwise, as long as they hold “just knowing” as a valid criterion for knowledge.
I have no problem discussing and debating philosophy with rational individuals with whom I agree that evidence is the basis of knowledge and reason is the method of arriving at knowledge. In fact, I discuss philosophy with such individuals on several occasions. However, I refuse to discuss philosophy with “hippies,” the very name implying a rejection of reason and reality in favor of irrationality and their own drug-induced fantasy world.
Therefore, since reason is the only means of civilized philosophical discussion, I refuse to discuss philosophy with those who explicitly reject reason because nothing beneficial could come from such conversations. Additionally, my discussion with such irrational individuals would be a sanction of their irrationality, which I refuse to do.
(Please keep in mind that rationality does not entail omniscience. One is not “rational” if one is correct and “irrational” if one is incorrect. One can be perfectly rational and arrive at a false conclusion. Rationality merely entails the strict use of reason as one’s only method of arriving at knowledge, it does not entail omniscience.
Comment by 11/10/2003 @ 1:37 pm
“I refuse to discuss philosophy with “hippies,” the very name implying a rejection of reason and reality in favor of irrationality and their own drug-induced fantasy world”
nobody explicitly rejected anything steve, your making up straw men arguments…(perhaps that will get you a job at Fox…Ill give O’Reilly a call)
Comment by 11/11/2003 @ 10:46 pm