In Defense of the Cowboy

Ayn Rand Institute ^ | Feb. 26, 2003 | Andrew Bernstein

[ReleaseTheHounds]

How could the author of this article NOT cite "High Noon"? Will Kane standing up to the Miller gang while all the locals shun the lawman and saying "there wouldn't be any problem if you had left..." Perfect analogy for the lousy French-German weasels.

[The Wizard]

Marshal Bush, Cleaning the streets of the global city

[tomkat]

[tomkat]

here, kittykitty ...

[heckler]

What in Sadams history leads you to believe this???? Sadam has been selling loads of oil-mainly to the Russians at discount prices, who then sell it for a hefty profit- wittness all of the elaborate temples that have been built by him in his honor. He has not been lacking for funds.Lifting sanctions will only allow him much more money for buying weapons and equipment from the French and Germans,it will only accelerate his ability to develop the weapons he needs to dominate the entire region through blackmail. WHO WILL STOP HIM from doing this if sanctions are lifted? Who will force him to alocate those resources to "medical aid,raw materials,infrastructure etc." WHAT in his history leads you to honestly believe that he would allow anything resembling democracy.

No offense, but your're blind wishfull thinking aint gonna do it.

[Greybird]

What makes this piece considerably ironic is that its institutional sponsor, the Ayn Rand Institute, does not support the enforcement of the Second Amendment.

Neither did Rand herself: "The use of force -- even its defensive use -- cannot be left to the discretion of individual citizens," she wrote in an essay reprinted in her book The Virtue of Selfishness.

Bernstein is besotted with the open-frontier cowboy image because he's writing a novel set in that era. I have met the man, and he is one of the most crabbed, abusive, and intellectually abysmal persons I have ever had to witness in public speaking -- and an atrocious representative of what is valid in Rand's philosophy.

[Ditter]

I have some European friends & I have an idea why they do not support Pres. Bush & the war on Iraq.
A. Because the are short sided cowards.
B. Because they are cowardly short sided.
C. Because when we defeat Saddam they have to admit we once again, pulled their bacon out of the fire. (Thats a cowboyism for "saving your butt")

[ImpBill]

Yippie Kye A! Let's Roll!

[heckler]

Being the second most well developed country in the region didnt stop Sadam from invading one of his neighbors to take more oil.

I ask again, what in his history leads you to believe that leaving him in power will benefit the Iraqi people as you have said

[Ditter]

Sure, but with your superior attitude I'm surprized you have any friends.

[katana]

One of the great films of all time is, of course, High Noon. Before facing the killers arriving by train at noon the sheriff tries his best to enlist the town to help, not only for himself but because in doing so they would be protecting themselves from a gang of lawless animals. Everyone turns him down. Even his wife cannot understand why he doesn't just face reality and run away.

Sound familiar? That story resonated with Americans in the 50's and still does. Every individual has a core image of him or herself, and so does every nation. I honestly cannot tell you what that image is for an Englishman, a German, of a Frenchman. In the case of the latter two, what had been their image of themselves has, I think, been stamped out and lost. Most Americans haven't yet, thank G*d, lost ours.

Foreigners (and their sympathizers of the American left) can disparage the word "cowboy" all they want, but they do not understand that the image of the lone cowboy standing up for good against all odds is our mythic image of what an American should be. Therefore, they are making a huge mistake if they think that calling G.W. Bush a "cowboy" is going to somehow make him less popular with most Americans. In fact, it will have the opposite effect.

[heckler]

I believe in watching peoples actions, not in listening to their words. I have seen nothing in history-not one example- that leads me to believe that a brutal dictator like Sadam would ever allow anything resembling democracy in his country. He has demonstrated through his every ACTION that his goal is to dominate the region, control all the oil of the region, giving him enormous power over the world economy.

I repeat, what in his history,or the history of any dictator like him leads you to believe apeasing him is a better option than blunt force trauma to his head?

Will there be civilian casualties when we invade? Yes. Will their be suffering? Yes. Will it come anywhere close to rivalling anything Sadam has imposed on his on people? Only if he unleashes WMD's on his own people in a last desperate act of vengence.

[Ditter]

Racist???????My European friends are admitted pacificist. They believe if they lay down & don't fight that the bad guys will go away & pick on someone who will. They were both born in Holland during the German occupation. Their first memories are of war in their front yard. I can understand being upset at the prospect of war (I am also), but they learned nothing from the appeasement of Hitler. I find that difficult to understand but since they both have their heads firmly buried in the sand now, we talk of other things..

[L,TOWM]

To tell you the truth I feel that the USNATO will just replace SaddamMilosevic with a USNATO friendly dictator-there is a lot in history that leads me to believe this! Leaving SaddamMilosevic in power isn't what I want or like but it is the alternative to a war which will cause more human suffering than it is worth, and this is what IraqKosovo is all about, right? To ease the suffering of the IraqiSerbian people because SaddamMilosevic is definetly only a threat to his own people not to us.If you look at my earlier post you will see what I think hould happen in the long term

You know, If I had heard things from the European great unwashed like this in 1999, I might have more respect for your arguments now.

So, Mr. Old World voice of reason and restraint, riddle me this:

A) How many UN violations did the Republic of Yugoslavia violate for 12 years?
B) How many aggressive wars did Yugolslavia launch against her neighbors? (Military action by NGO paramilitaries or within the pre 1991 borders of Yugoslavia don't count.)
C) What was the final count of the final UN Sec. Council Resolution authorizing the use of Force to achieve the ends of prior UNSC resolutions on Kosovo?

You see, buddy, this is what really Gauls us about the "Principled stand" the europeans are taking on Iraq; to many of us ignaorant and boorish Amis, it sure looks a lot more like hypocrisy than "a principled stand" to us. Oh well, I guess that's just because we don;t have the depth of sophistication that your culture has produced, right?

You see, buddy, we don't really give a rat's heinie what you twerps think. You have no moral standing with us now. You practically joined Monica on her knees to get our then Pervert-in-Chief to carry your water in Kosovo; and sure did'nt go to the UN then. You came to the Marshall, and he dutifully took care of business.

We are not asking you to spend one gram of explosives, one drop of jet fuel, or one drop of blood to help us to deal with a man that has'nt complied with a ceasefire he begged for, the UN agreed to and then was promptly fiddled with for 12 years. Just shut the F**k up--Lead, follow, or stay out of the way.

We took care of you many times during the last century. Now you don't even have the decency to quietly roll your eyes at us "cowbays" and stay silent. Many of us won't forget this apalling lack of gratitude, decency, or simple recognition of what a true friend thinks is important.

I don;t really expect a reply; you will either be banned or not try to defend an indefensible position.

[dighton]