Why IRAQ had to FAIL

[ColBrokov]

So the US invaded Iraq as a favor to Iraqis?! Sorry, but invading a weak nation that could never have harmed me is not my definition altruism. The reality is that there was an awful lot of talk about WMD, terrorist links and all sorts of baloney. The 'help the 'Iraqis' came to the fore only after all the other real motives (oil) failed to materialize.

[0Adamska]

us army even did this in the most dangerous area in afgan the korengal valley, they met and talked to the village elders and payed them back for killing a cow

[ma0ma0ma0]

most iraqis just want our troops to leave and if we destroyed their infrastructure they would hate us more and kill more troops

[MrChirpsky]

If the US went to invade another country that had not attacked us (as we were not attacked by Iraq) and declare that our motives were Nationalististic "self" interest, how then would we explain Why POLAND had to FAIL, or Why MANCHURIA had to FAIL? There was certainly no shortage of Nationalistic fervor in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan! (But then I forgot, we're special, we're the nation of the enlightenment with a manifest destiny blah blah blah.) Ominous parallels indeed!

[lekonoleken]

Americans elect polticians who do not believe that an individual or a nation should rise above their peers. So we have an internal philosophy issue. And since most people are losers they vote for people who will level the playing field. What we get is a nation of losers

[lashkaretoiba]

Exactly. The leaders we elect are only as good and trustworthy as the masses whom elect them. If Obama's election proved one thing about America it's that a majority of Americans feel they are entitled -

[lashkaretoiba]

but not just merely entitled - but entitled to happiness - but not just any entitlement to happiness - but the entitlement to others hard work and earnings from which they can stablize their artificial happiness - Of which they do not learn to aquire the value: self-worth. In short, Ergo, we are a nation filled of a majority of slothful thieves.

[lashkaretoiba]

while I agree with objectivism I also tend to think milton freedom while sort of effy on government intervention had a better grasp on economics.

He combated with history and reason better than ayn rand ever did, at least in live debates as far as I have witnessed. philosophically though objectivism is sound in my book.

[lekonoleken]

You are smart! I loved the name Operation Infinite Justice

[afghanhunter221]

this is hate speech, i condemn this kind of behavior against 1.5 billion people.. this yaron asshole needs to jerk off and feel better about the world. go fuck urself mr. yaron brook.

[ChuckyHammer]

Wow, exactly like I think!

[cochisestronghold]

He is right about it being Bushs war. How about the crooked contractors that are riping off the US government one example is a company that cooks meal for the troops at something like $15 a meal.

[RodCornholio]

Sadly that price is probably cheaper than if the inefficient government did it.

Such is also the reason why health care & education costs are too high. The gov't created the bubbles by making money easily available to those who desire those products or services.

[richardcadbury]

you are correct in all but one sense.

perhaps you should reconsider your use of the mildly orwellian term "health care".

since when did medicine start being called "health care".

there is a creepy inudendo that if you aren't in favour of socilaised medicine that you are against health, and against care.

[RodCornholio]

Outstanding point. I have succumbed to the propaganda/New Speak "health care"; a leftist/socialist hijacking of the accurate, objective term "medicine". Pervasive to my own subconscious core these evil terms are.

[lekonoleken]

Are you a writer brilliant

[RodCornholio]

You must be a brilliant reader to understand my writing.

[amibidhrohi2006]

A tyrant to western companies? APOC treated its workers like rats, violating the terms of their operation. A responsible leader representing the Iranians HAD to oppose their operation. I imagine any leader who defends the interest of his own people, would be a 'tyrant' to those who seek to subjugate those people from outside.

Individual rights. America has supported dictators who oppressed time and time again. Do Palestinians count as individuals? What rights do they have?

[deinse81]

No, "Palestinians" doesn't count as an individual.

An individual is one human being, with the capacity to reason, not a group of people. To Israel, a palestinian should count as the enemy as long as he aligns himself with forces that wish to attack Israel.

In fact all palestinians in Palestine are opressed by their own leaders, because that's what they stand for, and all paestinians in America are treated as free individuals, because that's what America stands for.

[fortunatus]

Didn't he agree with the war at its beginning?

Retroactive reasoning is rather poor taste if you want to champion it.

[michigan83guerrilla]

Iraq had to fail or there would be other countries getting the Iraq treatment in the near future.

American imperialism has failed. Imperialism always fail when the people of the affected area rise up to push back the occupiers.

[GaspariniPortugal]

I'm not seeing American troops in Zimbabwe...

Nor East Timor

Nor Rwanda

Nor Tibet

Nor any place else other where we can find direct economic American interest...

WE SHALL NEVER FORGET that the first reason presented by US government for the entry in Vietnam was "to help a friend that's the South Vietnam State"...

[GaspariniPortugal]

What's morally obscene it's trying to hide with hypocrites promises of altruistic help of foreign lands when we all know that US objective of the war was political surviving of the Bush administration after failing the capture of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the energy pressure of oil prices.

Trying to convert that in blaming Bush for shattered altruism, it's a rhetoric exercise that only can fool Brook or the Americans but never the Europeans.

Iraq failed just because it was a wrong!

[Vodka2389]

Yaron Brook is one of the best orators around these days. He has a great talent for getting other's to pay attention. He'd probably be a great lawyer if he didn't have any principles.

[soitoldhimno]

The biggest thing that upsets me about all this is the treatment of American soldiers as sacrificial animals.

The ONLY reason a soldier should ever be sent to war is to defend his own life, liberty, property, and loved ones.

[Wonderbread166]

Why doesn't he question more whether an invasion of Iraq was justified in the first place? They were not a threat to us.

[soitoldhimno]

He does in other articles/videos, saying that Iraq is the wrong target and Iran is the right one. Remember this is only a 10 minute segment of 1 lecture, out of many lectures and articles that Yaron Brook does.

[amibidhrohi2006]

How is Iran the right target? Iran's never attacked the US, even though the US overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in the 1950s over their desire to nationalize their own oil.

I'm sick to death of these Israelis suggesting Israel's interests are America's. And that is what this is about. Brook is Israel-born, and would have America's reputation and American lives squandered to defend Israel, when Israel is guilty of gross crimes against humanity with regards to the Palestinians.

[Beethovens7th]

1. Iran has attacked the US many times all over the world through proxy groups. They're the center of our broader enemy which is the entire Islamic fundamentalist movement.

2. The fact that a government is "democratically elected" is completely irrelevant. Tyrannies all over the world have been democratically elected. No group of people, no matter how large, has the right to vote away any individual's rights.

3. It was not their oil. It had been sitting underneath their feet for years...

[amibidhrohi2006]

"Tyrannies all over the world"? Mossadeq wasn't a tyrant. He was the elected leader of the Iranians, chosen because of his desire to give Iranians control over their own resources. Would Americans tolerate a foreign country claiming ownership of American resources?

America forced a coup against Mossadeq, and PUT IN HIS PLACE A TOTALITARIAN MONSTER, who like Saddam employed the use of secret police to brutalize political opponents.

[Beethovens7th]

I did not say that I supported the CIA's action. I certainly don't support them replacing the guy with a totalitarian monster, but that is completely irrelevant to the issue.

Again, that Mossadeq was the "elected leader" means nothing to me. Democratic elections is a useful tool in practical terms, but ultimately only one thing matters and that is individual rights. Again, those resources did NOT belong to the Iranians. Mossadeq was a tyrant to the Western companies who developed the fields.

[Beethovens7th]

...and they had not figured out anything useful to do with it until Westerners came along. Property rights are derived from the effort and labor that a man puts in towards creating something of value, not from the fact that you happen to be near something.

4. "Reputation" is a meaningless issue here.

5. As far as the Palestinians go, Israel is guilty of nothing. They've actually been far too "nice."

6. The fact that Brook is Israeli born is completely irrelevant. Your argument is...

[Beethovens7th]

...what YT user XOmniverse called the "argument from motive" fallacy. Even if Brook's motive is (but it's not) to save Israel because it is where he was born, that is irrelevant to whether or not his argument is correct. It's like saying "Ayn Rand was wrong about capitalism being the best way to go because she was actually just trying to save her Russian homeland from the communists."

[deinse81]

Hezbollah is an iranian sponsored terrorist group, and they ayyacked us directly. So taht's that, as far as your argument goes.

The rest of it is just assumptions on the speakers character, without addressing his arguments.

Israel has acted in self defense, the fundamentalist, tyrannical arab countries always initiated force.

[fubaglady]

Did this guy want us to go in and bomb hell out of people we weren't at war with? We were there to unseat the tyrant. And we did that. To leave after our objective was reached...without reconstruction, would be to leave a vacuum. One that would have been filled by Iran. We were chastized for doing that in Afghanistan after we helped them defeat the Russians...remember?

To ignore the obvious is to make create absurd theories.

[anseagraves]

"The healthy rational response was we need to fight a war now to make us safer." Why is this is the framework of thought for responding to to terrorism? If one believes that our presence in the middle east generates anger and resentment, and as a result retaliation in the form of terrorism, it seems that a response in the form of WAR only makes the situation worse. Upon this realization, we reach a profound problem - we need to be present in the middle east to sustain our our way of life.

[chachieb]

For once my resolve in the support for taking the fight to Theocrats in Afghanistan and Iraq has been seriously shaken. Nor do I want to join the fight if I'm going to just be a target building a sewer system for my enemies. The Strikers oath means much more to me and is the antigen for dying for someone else.

[flexorder]

Another Ziofacist boot clicker urging bloody aggressive war, violence against civilians and suspension of basic humanitarian standards. He is just another tool in the clash of civilization machine. Stand by your principles, investigate the truth.

[zarxo]

Britain and Churchill pushd for Israel's statehood, they thought that Israel would help bring in western influence, and I also think they did that to put a spur in the sides of the Arabic Community. Israel as a state has nothing to do with the Jewish faith nor what they proclaim as "theirs". They stole the land from the Palestines. Abraham their father left the Polytheistic gods of Iraq and turned to monotheism/zoroastrianism which is from Iran/Persia.

[zarxo]

Ayn Rand used her theories as isolation theories. Even her novel, the conversations between Rearden and Dagney--those conversations are not very every day language--very surreal. To live logic--will never happen. Even Aristotle (Ayn's forefather of logic) said that humanan cannot live very long in logic--see the Hellenistic Period. Anway. Greenspan didn't keep his job for forty years by being Objective. Being objective makes one a sitting duck for someone else that is very strategic.

[monkinator66]

The problem that I see with all Ayn Rand literature is it conveniently begins with how screwed up communism is( I agree); however, it fails you fully as an informed reader by implying that it all happened in a vacuum...it didn't. what led to the russian revolution in a nut shell was folks dying in the streets at the hands of a 'let them eat cake' leadership. sound familiar?

[Quasi84]

How old is this video? Would be nice if people actually started to tell us the age of the videos. Was it made yesterday or a year ago?

[Bellator656]

Oh, and the over a decade long, genocidal US war-effort against Iraq included plenty of destruction of infrastructure.

[Bellator656]

The problem with Randian logic is that it cannot be called logic. It has no respect for facts. United States and its leaders did not invade Iraq and Afghanistan for reasons for altruism . . . all brutal conquerors throughout history always declare altruistic intents because humans like altruism, but the leader's real intents are very different. Iraq war was fought for control of oil, Afghanistan was fought for the broader geopoltical reasons and to control the narcostate.

[zarxo]

not true. objectivism does work but it is not infallable. life is lived continously by these three: coherence theory, correspondence theory and of course the beloved pragmatism theory. objetivism can fit into pragmaticism and also correspondence. coherence works mostly with faiths.

[beingjohngalt1]

Sorry Zarxo, but Objectivism does not fit into "pragmatism." Pragmatism is a philosophy of "The ends justify the means," which is not amicable to life in full-context.

[zarxo]

objectivism falls into the correspondence theory. we live by all three means of these thories: correspondence, coherence and then pragmatic. with Capitalism, I find that egalitarianism can support it as well, not just capitalism. example: in the 60s-70s, neighbor smith buys a new car or a new appliance, neighbor brown learns of this and decides to be competetive and up his neighbor one. this is not objectivism in action but egaitarianism. *wink* even objectivism is not infallable.

[zarxo]

an example is the "Old Protestant Work Ethic" that the industrialists exploited for their own means. work hard to please god. faith by works. being pragamatic is that "it works, its efficient and why reinvent the wheel." that is pragmatic. the little every day routines are pragmatic. we don't have time to investigate ever little action/thing's purpose in our lives--we take it at face-value. very much like lore.

[beingjohngalt1]

No... Pragmatism is "whatever works right NOW" no matter if later it has adverse effects. This is not an objectivist position. I suggest. Pragmatism is a short-term, reflexive means, which does not adhere to any principle or principles.

[Radeo]

If the West had any moral certainty at all they never would have let the middle east nationalize *their* oil fields in the first place.

[Bellator656]

They can nationalize their oil if they want. It is in their soverign territory.

[Radeo]

It is not "sovereign territory" when one enters into an agreement with someone else to develop on that land.

Violation of that agreement is a legitimate cause for war.

Unfortunately the limp-wristed Carter administration did nothing when this happened.

Such inaction only emboldens those who wish to live by savagery and looting.

[Bellator656]

Nonsense. Soverign rights exceed and define property rights. That's something the libertarian morons don't understand.

[wsmith68]

The problem with Ayn herself and the ARI is inadvertent support of crony-capitalism. Ayn was used by McCarthy, spoke in support of Israeli defense and Peikoff advocates middle-east interventionism.

Ludwig Von Mises Institute has the better solutions which are more close to complete and functional anarchy.

[Doc418]

This is weird logic. The United States has not abandoned its self interests in Iraq at all. The problem with Randian logic is the they don't seem to understand that what happens to people, like Iraqis, will affect the American occupation. The fact is, had the US helped secure Iraq and fix Iraqi infrastructure in 2003, there would be no insurgency today. Alas this war was unnecessary, and had we invaded using Randian logic, we'd be in a worse situation than we are today.

[beingjohngalt1]

BS... It was not in the US's best interest to go there at all. It was in the interests of American fascism.

[shovelcharge]

oh...I see you put that in the description...so I guess never mind, but it wouldn't hurt

[jpkm123]

who is the naxi speaking?

[shovelcharge]

you should put yaron brook, ayn rand, objectivism, terrorism, as tags. Give the dude credit!

[blujesus]

randian logic is hysterically funny.

altruism!?! this entire conflict drags on so the west can pressure the iraqis into an unfair oil sharing agreement. as far as building hospitals and so on...

it was in the RATIONAL self intrest of the US to try to win the hearts and minds of the iraqis.

[paxspqr]

I agwee: Our countwy has a mowal wight to defend itself against foweign agwessows!

WON PAUL 2008!!!

[XCowboy2]

Thanks for contributing to the level of discourse...

[nine9s]

He's not a native English speaker--he's from Israel. Give him a break.

[Sivels]

@paxspqr lol

[extinction2060]

Have you read D.S.Mills' book called Newton's Law? You should! it's on the internet at joffepublish dot com