Talk:Yaron Brook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's fair use policy almost never permits the use of "fair use" images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Why was any information of Brook's working for Aman's Strategic Intelligence Bureau taken down? It seems anything revealing or critical has been edited out. The O'Rielly Interview DID happen. It should be put in for that grounds alone. There is very little documentation on this individual, just because that which is available is precieved as negative does not mean it should be taken down.

Contents

[edit] Photo Added

In response to the request for a photo, I added one. It is a publicity photo from the Ayn Rand Institute.

SWGreen1974 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's PR department seems quite active lately. ;-) LeaNder 14:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Revised and Expanded Article

I have significantly revised and expanded this article, incorporating some information from the previous stub version. Much of the information was drawn from Brook's new CV on the ARI website. Information not available from the CV has been cited. I have also included several quotes that I think clarify Brook's philosophical views on the war in Iraq.

Voltairius 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Job, Voltairius, well done, although it I still doubt that he changed his mind concerning the Iraq war. There is much more evidence that he was simply impatient, when he realized that the US forces wouldn't move on to the next victories in Iran and Syria (he adds Saudi Arabia as an important player in this context), that is the other regimes that support terrorism in the Middle East. He seems to be pretty constant in this respect: Al-Qaeda AND the regimes supporting terrorism have to be eliminated.

Why We Are Losing the War on Terrorism, Friday, September 6, 2002, Yaron Brook on the Peter Mac Show

[passage starts at: 01:54] PETER MCCANDLESS: So tell us, why we are loosing the war on terrorism, if you would?

YARON BROOK: Oh, … if the goal of the war was to capture and destroy the AlQaeda and Taliban the leadership and infrastructure; if the goal was to eliminate the regimes in the Middle East that support and harbour terrorism, than I think we got … a pretty weak start in this war …

I would be pleased about a quote concerning his change of mind. Were does he say explicitly I changed my mind, or it was wrong to attack Iraq, or more likely to attack Iraq first.

Lately we are told that Sharon warned Bush too: Corrected version - The forward Brooks definitely did not.

But Sharon seems to have shared the idea that Iran should be taken down immediately after Irak with e.g. Ledeen and Yaron Brook.:

Attack Iran the Day Iraq War Ends, Demands Israel (that is: Sharon)

If you are connected with ARI or know his lectures well, it should be easy for you to point out relevant passages in his lectures in this context. A quote or two would be fine. No doubt his ‘’victory’’ idea seems to be addictive. LeaNder 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


I think that Brook explicitly stated his change of mind on the Iraq War in a Q&A session after a lecture a few years ago. I'll dig through my videos and see if I can find it and transcribe it for you. In the meantime, I think the following quote from Jan. 2006 still represents his current view on the war:

BROOK: "Given our foreign policy, there is no positive outcome here. If we leave, it's a disaster, because we appease the enemy, and bin Laden would love nothing more than that. I mean, look at the tape that he just put out, declaring basically victory and asking us for a truce, which is, you know, asking us to leave, playing off of the idea of leaving. On the other hand, if we stay, nothing good is gonna come of staying. Americans are going to continue to die over there. There is no positive political goal, or military goal to which our forces are striving towards. At some point, we're going to leave Iraq. And I fear that this affect on bin Laden is gonna happen anyway. That is, it might happen tomorrow, or it might happen in five years. But the tragedy of it is that we cannot, we will not — we cannot because of our politicians — win the war in Iraq. And therefore this message to bin Laden is — that message is gonna be there, whether it's today or in five or ten years." (Yaron Brook, Q&A session after "America's Foreign Policy" lecture by Peter Schwartz, Jan. 25, 2006)

Brook here is saying that both withdrawing from Iraq and "staying the course" are disastrous options. Given Bush's policy, we are in a no-win situation. I'll dig up the other quote and add that when I can. Voltairius 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ARI updated Brook's CV

Helpful:

ARI has enormously updated Brook's CV – Thank you! LeaNder 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert: History of the Middle East

"partly due to his service in Israeli army intelligence he is also considered [citation needed] an expert on the history of the Middle East". I guess, since I wrote this sentence with a admittedly slightly polemical intention, I should comment on P4K's question. BUT: I am pretty sure I came across a statement in the introduction to one of his lectures or an interview that put it exactly like this. But I just checked; I unfortunately made no note, so sorry this will take time to check. Not much time now.

But in the larger context it is interesting that the ARI has enormously updated the site with information on Yaron Brook see above.


And here his "Middle East" expertise is listed as no. 1. But the further details clearly show that apart from his time in the Israeli army, intelligence, or the fact that he grew up in Israel, he has no "academic background" in this context. I will check if I can find the source as soon as I have more time LeaNder 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Here is the link between Middle Eastern Expertise and his experience in Israeli Intelligence:

His years of service in Israeli Army Intelligence, along with extensive research, have given him an expertise on the Middle Eastern conflict and terrorism, and American foreign policy in that region. Many college campuses around the country have hosted his most recent talk: "The Moral Case for Supporting Israel."[1]

Maybe he really is an expert on the Middle East conflict and US Foreign relation in the region. LeaNder 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly interview with Yaron Brook

OK, now I am admittedly a bit surprised.

I had the impression that the O'Reilly interview with Yaron Brook was something that happened recently. And now I have to ask myself, why is this interview from 2004 suddenly spread again as if it were news by the EIR/La Rouche crowd. Hmmm? I wasn't even aware it all leads back to the same circles.

So this is part of the anti-Bush pre-election campaign? Trying to prevent the next move on the big chessgame: Iran?

[removed LaRouche links]

Well LaszloWalrus and Buridan, I guess I take closer look at the larger context the LaRouchies use that old story. But that does not make this "rational" mindset less frightening. It was very, very frightening to watch.

LeaNder 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was at an event similar to the UCLA event and the quote "suggested that killing up to hundreds of thousands of their supporters would bring about their defeat" from the article is a twist of his words. He advocated the destruction of totalitarian regimes that use Islam for justification for declaring war on the United States. When asked if this would cause the death of their supporters, he replied that it is impossible to go to war without killing supporters of the cause you are fighting. (Much like how Confederate soldiers had to die in the American Civil War) For the record, the link in the footnotes for the daily bruin is broken and should be removed.

[edit] Category:American anti Iraq War activists

The description of the Category:American anti Iraq War activists says:

In addition to the criteria outlined above are all Americans residing in America who have said publically that either they:

  • A) Believe that the Iraq War was illegal and/or immoral from the beginning; or
  • B) Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or immorally, and have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it.

I think that it is too much of a stretch to call a person who advocates a dramatic escalation of the war an "anti-war activist." It would be sophistical to say that this is merely a variety of "belief that the war is being waged incompetently." It seems bizarre to me that Mr Walrus wants to include Brook in this category, so I would ask him to explain his reasoning. --Tsunami Butler 15:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to repeat my request that Mr Walrus explain his reasoning, since he seems to be engaged in revert wars over the inclusion of this category. --Tsunami Butler 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Brook falls under (B). "Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently?" Check. "Immorally?" Check. Both of those positions have been advocated by Brook in public lectures around the country, as well as in the pages of The Objective Standard. For example, in a lecture that was aired on CSPAN (August 14 2005), Brook stated “If we cannot fight this [Iraq] war properly, then bring the troops home.” He has stated that he wants the troops moved out of Iraq... and into Iran. In other words, he is agains the war in Iraq (for both moral and practical reasons) and for a different war. So, by the definition listed above, Brook should fall under the categroy. He is an anti-IRAQ war activists, though not an anti-war activist. This category refers to the first. Endlessmike 888 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
He fails the second part of (B): "have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it." This part is not optional. --Tsunami Butler 01:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the most ridiculous RfCs I have seen. Yaron Brook is not an anti-war activist, but a pro-war activist. You can disagree with how the war is being raged, while still supporting the war. Anyone adding the anti-war category is, basically, either a troll or a vandal (or both). --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 00:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
(1) What constitutes "public?" He has been on various cable news networks discussing the Iraq war, as well as lectured on college campuses accross the country, as well as participated in a conference on the war on terrorism that featured Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer. He spoke on the topic at The Ford Hall Forum (topic: The Forward Strategy for Freedom: Why it had to Fail). Is the criteria that he be known ONLY for being anti-Iraq war? (2) But the category is anti-iraq war, not anti-war. As I mentioned before, Brook is not for the Iraq war, he has argued (eg at the Ford Hall Forum) that the war in Iraq is immoral, should be ended, and never should have begun. He is AGAINST the Iraq war, and for a different one. So what? He is still anti-Iraq war. Is the category for anti-war activists who are also anti-Iraq war activists, or is it for anti-Iraq war activists? Perhaps there should be two categories, one for anti-war activists who are anti-Iraq war, and one for anti-Iraq war activists who may or may not be anti-war in general. Endlessmike 888 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I've answered one of my own questions. From the category itself, "So while the people listed in this category are against the war in Iraq they are not anti-war per se." Yaron Brook is against the war in Iraq. He is not anti-war. By the criteria on the category page he fits. Draw your own analogy to Ron Paul ((the example used on the category page) if you wish. Endlessmike 888 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that Ron Paul actually opposed the war. He has never called for "turning Fallujah into dust." --Tsunami Butler 15:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that quote what you base your opposition on? Brook is saying that, if we are going to be fighting in Iraq, we should be fighting differently than we are. He opposes the war, as he has clearly and explicitly stated both in the lecture on neo-conservatism that was link to before, and as he clearly and explicitly stated in his Ford Hall Forum lecture. It would be analogous to opposing the death penalty, but urging higher standards of evidence if execution is going to be used anyway. You are failing to take into account the full context of Brook's position (a context provided by numerous lectures and essays of which you are apparently ignorant). Endlessmike 888 17:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Tsunami Butler, are you involved with the LaRouche movement? Your talk page suggests that you've been editing in defense of LaRouche. If you are not, I apologize for bringing it up. I ask because members of The LaRouche Youth Movement have been following Brook around the country, disrupting his events, some times violently enough to be arrested. They've also been "infiltrating" private Objectivist disucssion groups under false pretenses. I don't expect such a person to edit Brook (or Objectivism) related wiki articles in good faith. Again, if your participation in LaRouche pages is just coincidence I apologize for bringing it up. Endlessmike 888 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted the "category:LaRouche movement" that you placed on my page. Please don't do that again. --Tsunami Butler 01:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't put that on your user page. At least, I don't remember making that edit, and my list of contributions log says I didn't. Is that a yes to being involved with the LaRouche movement? Endlessmike 888 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Endless': I think Tsunami answered your question satisfactorily. Of cause we can reinvent inquisition, using the appropriate tools. Besides, although I am too old, lets suppose I was a member of the LaRouche Youth Movement. In what respect would that change the general argument?

Would you say the LaRouchies are pro-Arab Anti-Semites nothing they ever say or think can be related to whatever reality? Or do you mean everyone that is skeptical about the solution offered by Yaron Brook, the Middle East expert, must be as the LaRouchies biased or an anti-Semite? No one else can share the LaRouchies feeling concerning the statements by Brook other than the usual suspects? Extreme Right and Left.

Would you agree that if you make a statement on a TV channel, as Brook has, you have to live with the consequences? And that includes people alerting other people to what he said? Can you point out in what larger context his statements has to be considered? Or why you think we get his ideas wrong?

Mr. Faster Please Ledeen and many others wanted WWIII / IV to move fastly on the Syria and Iran; so I can't really see a completely different strategy only a difference in tactics, who first, who next to bomb into surrender. What about legality?

The second paragraph is in urgent need of evidence, quotes e.g. in spite of heavy efforts in editorial distractions from this fact. In what context did he state his position about the neoconservative movement? Does it matter? Partly at least he seems to agree with them. Did Brook object to the Iraq war BEFORE it was started? Did the evidence used bother him?? Did he immediately say Iran was much more dangerous and should be attacked "first"? What were his expert ideas about Saddam?

I'd be pleased about any additions AGAIN the second paragraph needs facts, sources. Especially links to articles and videos that help give a better understanding of the man who seems to believe that thousands of people HAVE TO be sacrificed for the larger good, based on what ethics? Who decides in these matters, who takes responsibility, or is that an old-fashioned word in this context? Might makes right? Create reality, once things are done, they can't be reverted?

Tell me why I am wrong, if you think I mix things up. Sorry for the multiple editing of this mail, I had a heavy PC problem 80.135.214.70 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You apparently didn't pay any attention to what I said re Brook. I'm not disputing that Brook made the flatten comment on Fox News. Nor am I diputing that he is in favor of military action to solve the current problem with Islamic terrorism. I'm saying that (A) Tsunami is taking the quote out of context, both the context of the interview and the larger context of Brook's viewpoint and (B) the category does not exclude persons who are pro-war in general, so long as they are against the Iraq war. I have already cited two speeches Brook gave, one from 2005, one from October 2006 (the lecture at the Ford Hall Forum) in which Brook calls for an end to our involvement in Iraq. Tsunami's case rests on one out of context quote.
As to the LYM, I don't really know what they stand for, nor do I care, nor is it really relevent. What is relevent is that LYMers have behaved violently towards Brook and other ARI speakers, have been arrested for doing so on at least one occassion, and have been infiltrating ARI affiliated community and campus organizations. It would be a complete waste of time to discuss these issues with such a person, as they can not be reasonably expected carry on such a conversation in good faith. I'm asking her about her affiliation with LYM for me, so I can discern whether or not I'm wasting my time, and whether or not I should seek advice from other wikipedians on what the appropriate action when sincere conversation proves to be impossible.
Moreover, I think you are involved with the LaRouche movement, because you have just use argumentative tactics common to their propoganda. I never once mentioned anti-semetism, yet somehow you think I will accuse those who disagree with Brook of anti-semetism. In other words, you've introduced a giant irrelevent distraction, also known as a red herring. Nor did I say or imply that those who disgree with Brook are only LaRouchies, another red herring you've introduced. It isn't relevent whether or not you disagree with Brook's stance on Islamic terorrism. What is relevent is whether or not Brook is in favor of Bush's war in Iraq, which he is not. This is a simple matter of fact, not an evaluation. Is Brook against the Iraq war? Yes, as he said in the two previously cited lectures. Your attempts to turn this into a debate over the merits of Brooks proposals is itself also a red herring, as this is a simple matter of accurately stating what Brook's ideas are, not what we think of them. Is Brook against the war in Iraq? YES. Is he right to do so? Take it to a politics forum, not wikipedia. Endlessmike 888 18:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

turning Fallujah into dust For anyone who is interested, in the interview Tsunami quotes Brook was discussing moral issues surrounding war, in specific the Iraq war. He argues that we were fighting the war immorally because we were throwing soldiers into Fallujah to die, when we should have bombed the city from the air, forgoing the risk to the lives of the marines. In other words, the turing Fallujah into dust comment, taken in context, bolsters the claims that Brook is an anti-Iraq war activists, because he was saying on national TV that the Iraq war is being fought immorally. Now, you might disagree with this as an evaluation of the morality of war, or of what morality means in general, or of the practicality of Brook's advice. But the fact remains Brook was arguing that the Iraq war is being fought immorally, placing him under the anti-Iraq war category. Quoting people out of context and then using that quote to make them seem like they are advocating the opposite of their actual position is not, I don't think, in the spirit of wikipedia. Endlessmike 888 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

TsunamiButler What consensus? The only people discussing the issue are you and me? I hardly think one anonymous comment in your favor constitutes a consensus. Do you have any new evidence to present? Endlessmike 888 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed this --Tsunami Butler 09:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, that person posted one non-substantive comment five days ago and hasn't said anything since. How is that indicative of a consensus if he is not interested in participating? Endlessmike 888 19:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Endless: It was three days ago ;-). Let's be precise. OK I'll try to cut and paste my comment now again where it belongs. I had trouble assessing this section. No way via Firefox, error message trying to save comment in IE so I put it in the next section initally. Now I try to cut and paste it back here where it belongs:

Tsunami, I don't think he missed it. He simply ignores it. If he will allow me to fill-in-the-gaps in this context. But I guess, I have to comment on this part of his statement: Moreover, I think you are involved with the LaRouche movement, because you have just use (sic) argumentative tactics common to their propoganda (sic). I never once mentioned anti-semetism (sic), May I politely point out that it seems to be the mainstream assessment both over here in Germany and in the US that LaRouche is an antisemite? And since it is mainstream, what exactly does it tell you about me, apart from the fact that I can read? Chip Berlet on LaRouche’s antisemitic Conspiracism

That said, he indeed seems to have made a statement that on the surface supports Endless: Tom Blackstone's report of a Brook lecture

As the lecture began, he started talking about 9/11 and the threat of Islamic terrorism. He stated that America is fighting an ideological war against an enemy that is commited to nihilism. He said that they want to crush the American values of reason, science, and human progress. "They hate us because we are a secular nation," he exclaimed.
I thought "yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, get to the part where you say we have to 'spread democracy' in Iraq." Then the unthinkable happened: he said something like, "We really shouldn't have gone into Iraq, because Saddam Hussein didn't support Islamic Fundamentalism. Iran was a much better target."

I had a look at the "larger context" though. If you search the AIR site for statements op-eds, articles by Yaron Brook between 2001-2006 you'll find out that only in Apr. 2004 he wrote an article with Elan Journo, published as op-ed Australia in May, 2004 about the "larger context" we discuss here: America's Compassion in Iraq Is Self-Destructive, this article was published as an op-ed in a slightly edited version a year later again, which contains this passage:

Regardless of whether the Iraqi dictatorship should have been our initial target in the war against totalitarian Islam, when in the nation's defense a President sends troops to war, morally he must resolve to soundly defeat the enemy while safeguarding our forces and citizens. But America's attention has been diverted to rebuilding Iraqi hospitals, schools, roads and sewers, and on currying favor with the locals (some U.S. soldiers were even ordered to grow moustaches in token of their respect for Iraqi culture, others are now given cultural sensitivity courses before arriving in Iraq). Since the war began, Islamic militants and Saddam loyalists have carried out random abductions, devastating ambushes, and catastrophic bombings throughout the country. That attacks on U.S. forces (including those engaged in reconstruction efforts) have gone unpunished has emboldened the enemy.

So, I guess to keep up the NPOV we have to find an early comment by him [or his partner] at an earlier time to resolve the issue. But it seems he was much more occupied with the fact that America should give Israel a freer hand in "eliminating" Arafat, or wrote op-eds on Media conspiracies between certain media people and Palestinian terrorist

After studying a couple of his texts, I think the explanation may well be: He ardently supports the larger war on terror, but did not comment on it as long as "victory" still seemed to be a possible outcome. Only after things looked worse and worse he started to write and speak on the issue. Personally I was aware that bringing democracy to the Middle East might well have been part of a larger PR strategy, but not such a badly devised one. He seems to target a different audience to basically the same aims as the neocons. Interesting article. Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense", Yaron Brook, Alex Epstein, The Objective Standard, Vol. 1, No.1, Spring 2006 It will disappear from the net after a while. Is there any chance to save it? LeaNder 22:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

LeaNder, none of what you said contradicts Brook's inclusion in the anti-Iraq war category. In fact, you've given us more evidence that he is against the war (his 2004 statement that you cited). I suggest you listen to his Ford Hall Forum talk. His opposition to the war hardens over time. 2004 you can see it wasn't his focus, while in 2005 he was lecturing on the evils of neo-conservatism, and in 2006 he was at the Ford Hall Forum attacking the entire Bush strategy in the war, including its immoral handling of the Iraq war.
Re NPOV, how would you change the article to add to its neutrality? Endlessmike 888 01:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, my connection was gone again, when I tried to post my reply. Was rather long, so I'll try to make it a bit shorter.

Endless: My main objection to painting Brook as anti-Iraq war is:

What evidence is there that he objected at an early stage? So far I can only see, he joined the critics party once things went wrong. Suggesting basically to viciously strafe the people that did not welcome the troops with flowers in their hands.

The neo's seem to use a similar escape road. It simply wasn't done well enough. Now it's the military, but ironically the military said that more troops were needed at an early stage. But who cares about yesterdays news? Now probably more troops will be sent.

I think there can be no doubt, he supports the War on Terror AND basically only demands it is done without any humanitarian considerations, even defining moral or ethics completely new in the process, this indeed leaves me a scratching my head at the moment, admittedly.

I will read his “Just War theory vs American self defense” again, but from the top of my head, I can say that I am highly suspicious, when a former intelligence officer tells me the problem is the ethical frame of the “Just War theory” thus an old model applied by the Theocons to be used for the larger strategic perception management. Only in a footnote and only for a small subject of realists he uses the Machiavellian tag. This feels like dissembling, since “Il Principe” has been the bible for every power player for many, many centuries by now. And the “Just war theory” was an important part in the supportive war drums of the Public Affairs officers and their PR partners. As was the “bringing democracy to the ME”. To attack it means attacking PR fogs. And I think he knows.

I asked Tom Blackstone about the larger context of the quote, he put in his article. I asked him, if I could forward his whole answer but got no answer yet. I hope he will allow a tiny quote here:

As for what exactly he said, it was something like "We really shouldn't have invaded Iraq, because it isn't an Islamic fundamentalist society". After that, he said something about it being a dictatorship and so at least it showed that we were opposed to dictatorship. He didn't seem very excited when he made this second statement though, and it seemed as if he was saying it simply to stave off criticism from supporters of the Iraq war. Or at least that's the way it seemed to me.

My interpretation of the “dictatorship” comment would be completely different. Obviously he must be uncomfortable from an anti-altruistic and objectivist/isolationist point of view. After all bringing down a dictator is a very altruistic affair, and much of the noble image of the US is that she – YES! – freed the Europeans of the Nazi terror.

As we see here reality cannot be always pressed neatly into whatever ideological frame. My main argument against “objectivity” would be “subjectivity” starts with selection, and the universe is a pretty complicated thing, so we necessarily need to select, no matter how hard we try we can’t completely avoid it.

Tell us what motivates you to defend Brook? Are you an objectivist? Do you think his suggestions could be the solution to the problem after all? Why do you think he entered the controversy suggesting how the war had to be done.

What I asked myself at the moment: Why did O’Reilly choose him? Based on the op-eds Brooks had written? Maybe it would be interesting to know. Would Brook tell us?

I can tell you as a German I have the highest respect for the people that helped others during the Nazi terror; even if it meant to endanger themselves. loose their lives; as I have the highest respect for the priests that did prefer to be sent to the camps and not give up their “altruistic believe” as demanded by the powers, and as the majority of priest did. LeaNder 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Tom supports that Brook is Anti-Iraq-War position

A very paradoxical thing in itself, considering Brook's statements on O'Reilly.

But here my questions to Tom after I discovered his report on the Brook lecture on the net:

ARI's Yaron Brook at GA Tech - An Incredibly Surprising Lecture

Tom,

may I ask you some question about the above article?. It's not too easy to find out when this event took place? Was it March 17, 2005?

What puzzles me is this:

...." Then the unthinkable happened: he said something like, "We really shouldn't have gone into Iraq, because Saddam Hussein didn't support Islamic Fundamentalism. Iran was a much better target."

This sounds almost as if he hadn't supported the war against Iraq, but if I look at his articles and papers at ARI I find that hard to believe.

From what I can see I have the impression he supported the war, but thinks it should have been fought with less consideration for - I guess he would hyphenate "innocent" - civilians.

Did he say something about the larger context? Would I find a synopsis/summary of his speech somewhere?

Would he have supported the elimination of the Iranian regime first, or does he feel taking down Saddam first was fine, it simply wasn't done well? [2]

His answer

Hi ***, I am not sure what the exact date of the lecture was. I believe less than a week had passed from the time of the lecture to the time I had written that article though. As for what exactly he said, it was something like "We really shouldn't have invaded Iraq, because it isn't an Islamic fundamentalist society". After that, he said something about it being a dictatorship and so at least it showed that we were opposed to dictatorship. He didn't seem very excited when he made this second statement though, and it seemed as if he was saying it simply to stave off criticism from supporters of the Iraq war. Or at least that's the way it seemed to me. About a month after this lecture, he gave another talk in CA called "Neo-Conservatives vs. America", in which he extensively criticized the motivations behind the war in Iraq. Just recently, he once again criticized the war in his talk "Democracy vs. Victory: Why The Forward Strategy of Freedom Had to Fail". Both of those newer lectures are available on CD, and you can listen to the newest one for free if you register with the ARI website. I don't believe that Yaron Brook thinks we should have invaded Iraq at all, much less "first". However, it is hard to know exactly what his views are since he is trying to appeal to "war-hawk" types of people and is always very careful when criticising the war to try to do so in a way that is appealing to them. As for the essay that you referred to (the one titled,"Withdraw or stay the course in Iraq? Neither") I understood that as being a proposal on what to do now that we have started the war rather than a discussion of whether the original war was justified. However, I admit that I am somewhat perplexed by the things he states in that essay. I am not sure what he means by "the insurgency". Does he mean the Shiites or the Sunnis? He argues in the "Democracy vs. Victory" lecture that the Bush administration is evil for creating an Islamic fundamentalist society in Iraq. But if we "crush" the Sunni insurgency then it seems that we would be helping the Shiites to create the very society that Brook fears. Perhaps the answer is that he doesn't even know himself what should be done, since he doesn't think the war should have been entered into in the first place and yet doesn't want to retreat for fear that it will embolden Islamists. I admit that he is not very clear about a lot of things. The reason I am so supportive of him though is not because I think he is very clear about specifics concerning the war. It is also not because I agree completely with everything that he says. I hope that article that I wrote was clear about that. The reason I support him is because he communicates the essential principles that need to be understood if one is going to apply Objectivism to issues of foreign policy. He states over and over again in his lectures that America should not sacrifice itself for the sake of "spreading democracy", and he calls the Bush wars "social services wars". He also stated in the lecture that I saw that he considers himself to be an "isolationist" and that the islamists can take over the entire middle east for all he cares as long as they don't mess with America. These are the kind of things Objectivists need to be saying. Objectivism advocates a "defensivist" view of foreign policy, i.e. a foreign policy which states that a country should defend itself and leave everyone else alone. Unfortunately, I have read some other Objectivist authors who advocate policies that are in complete contradiction to an Objectivist view of foreign policy. in fact, right before I saw that lecture I had recently been in an argument with a prominent member of Georgia Objectivists who was an unrepentant advocate of nation building. So, to summarize what I'm saying, I don't care if Yaron Brook gets everything right, as long as he gets the essentials right. The essential issue to understand is that it is never o.k. to tax the American people and force us to pay for the liberation of foreigners. As long as he keeps repeating that, I am happy with the work he is doing.

I hope that answers some of your questions. Please do write back though if there is something I haven't explained adequately. Also, if there is anything else you'd like to talk about than please speak up. I don't ever get tired of talking about philosophy. It's what I live for. :)

Short comment

Although Tom just wrote: Yaron Brook does properly belong in the category of "Anti-Iraq War.

I insist, if there is no further earlier evidence, I will object to the term without further qualifications. All I admit is he joined the public debate, early, when the hawks still pretended things were fine, suggesting to turn up the heat, or more precisely to finally execute the Shock and Awe strategy, to break resistance by all means possible, even with the atom bomb if necessarily [He mentioned the atom bombs on Japan in the larger context].

"Objectively" he does not belong in this category NOW, and only tells us, he belonged to it before. I remain open to further evidence. If he objected to the Iraq war in early 2003, I will surrender. Absolutely no question.

And only in that case the category would read:

Initially anti-Iraq-War, turned into the most ardent hawk in 2004 [this the time that can be supported by evidence] when the administration still pretended as long as it stood the course, controlling bad news, it could control reality. LeaNder 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

LeaNder, I think I understand your point now, tell me if I am wrong. You object on the grounds that his opposition to the Iraq war is too recent to qualify him? You are interested in what his view was from the outset, i.e. early to mid-2003 during the build up and initial attack? If I've misunderstood I'll re-read the thread and get back to you. Endlessmike 888 01:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Endless that's it. No need to go back and reread the tread. But you were right above, I initially did not quite understand the debate between you and Tsunami and wondered if your exchange about the category started somewhere else`? I still can't find the lecture mentioned by Tsunsmi you allude to.

I am aware there may be no written or recorded evidence. He may well have been anti-Iraq-war initially without explicitly writing or saying it somewhere. As he may have publicly stated it and it wasn't recorded. So there are limits beyond everything is speculation. Maybe you instinctively trust him, and I am a bit hesitant and demand further proof? Aesthetically: The shift feels to extreme to believe he can ever have been absolutely anti-Iraq-War. The bringing democracy to the Middle east got me into emotional fogs myself. Many, many critics painted the scenario we see now. Did he???

Search on the ARI database for op-eds & articles by Brook

15.Aug.01, Calls for Palestinian State Spell Suicide for Palestinians
15.Nov.01, Danger - Homegrown Terrorists
18.Jun.02, A Call to Destroy All Palestinian Terrorists
28.Sep.02, America at War - Give Israel the Green Light to Eliminate Arafat
30.Dec.02, Are Media Networks Aiding and Abetting Terrorism?
24.Jun.03, Do Corporations Have Rights?
20.Apr.04, America's Compassion in Iraq Is Self-Destructive, Yaron Brook and Elan Journo
03.Nov.04, Arafat Deserves Execution Not Natural Death
24.Dec.04, A Secular Christmas
12.Jan.05, America's Compassion in Iraq Is Self-Destructive, Elan Journo and Yaron Brook
24.Jan.06, Eliminate the Iranian Threat
03.Feb.06, BB&T Right Not to Lend to Eminent Domain Developers
07.Feb.06, Do Not Apologize for Cartoons of Mohammad
07.Feb.06, End the Jihad Against Free Speech
15.Feb.06, Abramoff Scandal
31.Mar.06, Borders Capitulates to Islamic Threat
22.May.06, "Indecency" Fines: An Ominous Attack on Free Speech
21.Jun.06, Diplomacy Encourages North Korea's Belligerence
27.Jun.06, Buffett and Gates Ignore the Fundamental Cause of World Poverty
13.Jul.06, Bush's Pro-Election Strategy Is Pro-Terrorism
20.Jul.06, Bush Vetoes Medical Progress
26.Jul.06, Death to Diplomacy
27.Jul.06, Big Thanks to Big Pharma
LeaNder 12:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So if you agree that Brook is currently against the war, why does it matter that he was or was not from the begining? The criteria listed on the category page do not limit inclusion to only those who were against the war from the start. Endlessmike 888 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So, no, I don't agree that Brook is anti-Iraq-War, he is only raging against the military being wasted on humanitarian enterprises in Iraq (Is it really? does it even have the time?), since he would prefer it to move on to Iran. I agree that he would like to see the troops now in Iraq attack Iran instead of saving Iraqi's NOW. Thus not anti-Iraq-War? But reminiscent of the neocon's desire to move on to the next target on the axis of evil to "translate ... [Yaron Brook's] confidence in America’s moral superiority into military actions to defend our values" finally using the once promised "shock and awe" with no methods ruled out (WMD, mini nukes, atom bombs). "Democracy vs. Victory: Why the 'Forward Strategy of Freedom' Had to Fail

I added the category link above, took me a little to get therre. Finally I understand your and Tsunamis discussion. So the problem is the definition here: Category talk:American anti Iraq War activists See my comment there. LeaNder 13:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition: Brook would have preferred a war against Iran first, from the very start BUT initially wasn't ‘ against the Iraq war’’’, he is only against the execution of the Iraq-War now. Below excerpts from an interview in 2002. Already then he critized the execution of the war on terrorism , then only Afghanistan, as not executed as he suggested in the O'Reilly interview. So he is pretty consistent in his criticism, but not anti-Iraq-War, as the interview shows, he would have preferred to attack Iraq first, but is perfectly pleased that Bush will take Iraq instead. From what things look to me now. He has been an ardent-critic-of-the-execution-of-the-War-on-Terror, from early on. Could we shift this discussion over to the category site?

Why We Are Losing the War on Terrorism, Friday, September 6, 2002, Yaron Brook interviewed by Peter Mac

PETER MAC:: [16:47] So we thought we might, if you would Dr Brook talk about the fact that the United States now seems to be gearing up for an attack against Iraq and how this plays into our War on Terrorism. Do you agree that it is justifiable in your eyes? How should be execute that war and how will that be connected to our overall resolve to attack terrorists that are not just confined to that country?

YARON BROOK:: [17:12] I think it is important that we go after Iraq. I actually - just as a side note - I am not sure it’s the most important country we can go after. I happen to think, that the ideological source of Islamic fundamentalism, or Islamic terrorism is Iran.

PETER MAC: OK!

YARON BROOK: [17:32 inaudible due to OK by interviewer, must be something like: We have to define the source] if we want to defeat militant Islam. I think Saddam Hussein backs terrorism, as a kind of a tool to get at the United States.

PETER MAC: Right!

YARON BROOK: He does not back it ideologically. He is not a really, I don’t think he is a religious Muslim at all. If we really want to attack the ideology, not Islam but militant Islam

PETER MAC: Right

YARON BROOK: The only way to do that is attack the center of the ideology, which is Iran, and really the beginning of all Islamic terrorism in the world, that began in 1979 with the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and the conversion of that country into a religious theocracy.

But I don’t think the Bush administration is ready to do that, but given that they are not going to do that, then Iraq is a good target. I think there is substantial evidence that Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction. I don’t think there is any question he'll use those kind of weapons against the United States and against its Allies, particularly Israel.

Ah …, so I think that we, that we need to take care before it manifests itself in a direct attack against the United States. We cannot allow brutal dictators, like Saddam Hussein, to have control over WMDs. We need to take those kind of regimes out. And particularly if we know that these regimes have links to terrorists that would to do us harm.[19:11]

Do you think the category's definition should be refined? [Meta, sub-categories] or are you only apprehensive of an objectivist brother's fair representation? Pray tell me ;-)LeaNder 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I thought we already arrived at the conclusion that in his two lectures on neo-conservatism and his FHF lecture that he is againts the Iraq war. Did I point out that he said, "If we cannot fight this war properly, then bring the troops home," in an August 2005 lecture that was aired on CSPAN? Is that NOT "B) Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or immorally, and have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it."? And isn't it clear that Brook has since changed his mind and admitted his error since that 2002 interview? I'm just applying the criteria from the category page.
I have no problem with sub-categories, as there are clear differences between eg Brook and Cindy Sheehan. But until that type of differentiation exists, Brook belongs in the category under (B).
As to JameMLane's comment below, are we voting or something? Sorry I'm new so I'm not up to speed on how that process works. But anyway, isn't this "Just ask what most readers would be looking for if they looked to see which articles were in this category. Would they want to read about Brook? No." exactly what we aren't supposed to do on wikipedia? That is, aren't we not supposed to take our own biases, and then use them as a basis for deciding content? What about readers who are against the Iraq war because they think its failure damages America's ability to carry on a proper war against terrorism? They would be interested in learning about Brook, since that is his possition, and the majority of his lecturing and writing has been geared towards explaining how bad Bush's foreign policy is doomed to failure. Don't those readers count? Endlessmike 888 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
an id attribute
  • Oppose including Brook in the category. I came here in response to the RfC and I find a discussion that's gotten rather far afield. On the specific question of including him in the category of activists against the Iraq War: The purpose of the category system is to help the reader find information. The question shouldn't be answered by hypertechnical parsing of Brook's work or of the terms of the definition. Just ask what most readers would be looking for if they looked to see which articles were in this category. Would they want to read about Brook? No. So don't include him. I'd have no objection to a category of "Iraq War escalation advocates" or whatever other wording would best describe those who, like Brook, criticize the conduct of the war from the right rather than the left. JamesMLane t c 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea, James. May I mark it? But as an observer at the fence I have to revert to hypertechnical parsing. Tricked or tricking??

Endless I'll add the category James suggests above, with a little chronological matters. You tell me what you objectively see. Or what I miss. I start to get interested in this guy. This one almost made me like him: " Yaron Brook on the Thom Hartmann Program, American Money to Hezbollah, August 6, 2006 ;-)LeaNder 23:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The information posted above indicates that he would prefer escalation to the war as it is, but he'd also prefer no war (and a war with Iran instead) to the war as it is. In other words, he supports *both* escalation and de-escalation. So just because readers aren't looking for someone in favor of escalation doesn't mean that this categorization is useless for the reader.
Second, considering just the escalation part, why not just fix the definition? If someone who wants to escalate the war should be excluded, then rewrite the definition in to exclude such people. Define it so the activist must think the war is being waged too destructively rather than that he thinks the war is waged "incompetently". Ken Arromdee 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] category: Iraq-War escalation advocate

#Iraq War escalation advocates

JamesMLane: thanks, that category fits perfectly.

March 2003 "Moral objectivity" is all the US needs to fight the war against Saddam:

Should the U.S. Invade Iraq Without U.N. Approval?, March 6, 2003, Yaron Brook on the Myles Spencer Show

Iraq War#2003: Invasion

Iraq War#May 2003: "End of Major Combat"

June 2003 America demands: Let’s move on to Iran. (same position as “Mr. Faster Please” Ledeen)

If Necessary Use Force Against Iran, Wednesday, June 25, 2003, Yaron Brook

September 2003 America’s War is to Timid:

The Timid War on Terrorism; Thursday, September 4, 2003, Elan Journo and Yaron Brook

April 2004 America’s War is too compassionate:

[http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=8402 America's Compassion in Iraq Is Self-Destructive; Tuesday, April 20, 2004, Yaron Brook and Elan Journo]

December 2004 Bomb them into dust, Watch Yaron Brook on The O’Reilly Factor:

ARI proudly presents

direct video link

Sorry, no idea why the "compassionate link" does not work, the way I want it. Also, this is my first attempt to link to other Wiki articles or other spots on this page. Will it work? Good Night, America 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) No, it seems? LeaNder 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of something more broad. Brook is explicitly advocating a different approach to foreign policy and the morality of war than the one being advanced by Bush/the neocons. He is unique in that he is fundamentally opposed to the nation building advocated by Bush/neocons, yet a proponent of ending the Iraq war in favor of a war elsewhere. Also, by at the latest August 2005 Brook was no longer in favor of staying in Iraq, so he wouldn't fit under a "Iraq-War escalation advocate." He would be a "Former Iraq-War escalation advocate." Endlessmike 888 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Endless: Something more broad? Is that another term for the 'larger context'? Why don't you write a introductory paragraph on Brook's "different" objectivist approach to foreign policy?

My problem - my purely subjectivist Old Europe perspective – is Brook’s usage of words. It feels like he turned them upside down. And this is pretty confusing. e.g. I can only read the phrase: "you have to be willing, morally willing" via the tradition of European philosophy or thinking. I have no established shortcut between "will" and "ethics". But I have a shortcut between “will and power”. But that leads into a rather different chain of associationn than will and ethics. I am not a philosophical expert but - maybe due to my German background - concerning will two people come to mind: Nietzsche and Schopenhauer; or from a non-religious occultist perspective: Crowley and his "do what thou want".

Maybe the usage of language inside the "Objectivist Camp" has a certain arcane quality, that is, it does not need to be explained to "us" nitwits outside the camp? Could this be part of the problem we are having here? And you think you must defend the occultist thought against us non-adepts/non-iniitated/outsiders who do not fully understand?

Looking at this in context: “We have to be willing, morally willing”. How does an individualist objectivist convince the American masses or the “we” to accept the needed collective ‘’’moral’’’ willingness? On the Myles Spencer Show he offers an easy approach to this: the president has to only to pass on his “moral assuredness, moral confidence” and the Americans will happily follow.

’’ Well I’d say the polls would change dramatically, if president Bush made a focussed attempt to appeal to the American people instead of sending our representatives to the UN and France and Germany and to all these other countries. If ****?, Powell and president Bush had gone on TV and faced the American people with the facts and told them that this is necessary to the defense of the nation, I think his approval rate as regards to the war would have skyrocketed. I think that they have established this premise that we need the UN’s approval and therefore most American’s are now agreeing with the president and are saying, well, we are agreeing with the president, we shouldn’t be doing it unless the UN approve. Because hey, you spent all this time to convince the UN, so it must be important. I think if George Bush had come out and said, the UN is not important, what we believe is important that if we think this essential for security, the American people would have followed him.’’

That's very much about perception mannagement. So are individualist objectivists ultimately only a new model of the old manipulative macchiavellians, OR is the morally assured, moral confident moral will something ultimately ultra-American, that anyone from Old Europe to the Forth World can never perceive and/or understand? Let me answer your post above? And then I have to devote my time to solve a problem here on the ground and will be gone for a couple of days:


Endless: Now I'm confused. I thought we already arrived at the conclusion that in his two lectures on neo-conservatism and his FHF lecture that he is againts the Iraq war.

LeaNder: I am in the process till the day I die. I am very, very far from a final conclusions concerning the Yaron Brook case. But as a more general remark WARNING: I never add alerts concerning irony, sarcasm (rare) or other mood qualities that invade my lines. And I am not easy to convince in these anti-compassionate matters.

Endless': Did I point out that he said, "If we cannot fight this war properly, then bring the troops home," in an August 2005 lecture that was aired on CSPAN?

LeaNder: I am basically a "Thomas", I don't know this lecture. So I cannot tell if this phrase is a rhetorical device to get his central idea over, and idea he had from the very start: The war has to be fought much more uncompromisingly. Do it, or leave it. But if you do it, do it right. If necessary use the atom bomb, to force them to surrender. And you are not "morally willing to use any means possible", then you might just as well go home.

Endless: Is that NOT "B) ‘’Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or immorally’’, and have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it."?

LeaNder: I can see the problem concerning the definition. “Immorally” leaves itself wide open to the specific objectivist use, mentioned above. Illegal would be better. I have thought about it for a while, but find it hard to define it as shortly as above and I hesitate a bit to interfere, since I don’t know many of the people and thus do not know what shaped the definition. An AND instead of a OR in the second phrase would keep Brook out. As it would keep out the many, many people who flee the pro-war camp since defeat never has many fathers. How about this? But then, the US had a rather uniform propaganda machine at the time, including Judy Miller at the NYT.

‘’"B) ‘’Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or ‘’’illegally’’’’’, and have become publicly known as critics of the war ‘’’and’’’ the justifications used to launch it."? ‘’

Endless: And isn't it clear that Brook has since changed his mind and admitted his error since that 2002 interview? I'm just applying the criteria from the category page.

LeaNder: I am still not sure, if he has ever changed his view. I am still in the process of studying when, where and who this exactly happened. At the moment I can see much more continuity than change of mind. And I have the impression the statements, as the one Tom reported, are basically rhetorical devises, he has to pick up the people, where they stand. It would be foolish to pretend "public opinion" has not changed very much.

Can you tell me why the "America's compassion" article link does not show as the others? I can't discover the reason. And I guess I give up trying to find out. Will be gone for a week maybe two LeaNder 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I have put on the NPOV tag, because it seems that some editors are trying to bizarrely spin this article to make Brook simultaneously a warmonger and an anti-war activist. --Tsunami Butler 16:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

See my previous comment. The category does not descriminate between "warmongers" and "anti-warmongers." It is for those opposed to the Iraq war, warmonger or not. Endlessmike 888 01:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brook & Neoconservativism

He advocates an American policy supporting Israel against terrorism. Despite Brook's speaking positively about scholars such as Daniel Pipes, he is highly critical of neoconservatism (and conservatism in general). He opposes President Bush's handling of the Iraq War because he believes that Bush has needlessly sacrificed American troops in order to appease the international community and the United Nations. He also advocates military action against Iran and support of the Iranian students opposing their government.

Somehow the "despite" troubles me. "Despite" what??? Although he supports Daniel Pipes?

Could the author please explain.

How about: While he advocates The War on Terrorism, and supports scholars as Daniel Pipes, he is highly critical of neoconservativism.

But after this statement I would like to know more about what he exactly criticizes. And I guess whoever added this must know. No?? OH! Happy New Year All! LeaNder 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] objectivism

When and where was he first exposed to Objectivism? In the US or in Israel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.220.246.20 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

In a personal conversation (sorry, no reference yet), he said that he was first exposed to Rand/Objectivism in Israel. Randian 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] delete the RfC?

You still have a RfC on whether to include Brook in Category:American anti Iraq War activists. Clearly he meets the definition of war critic, and the technical definition of the category, but not the colloquial understanding of the term. Including him would make the point that the category is badly defined, but that's against wp:making_a_point or whatever that policy is called. How about deleting the RfC? Andyvphil 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition on the category page includes these criteria, which Brook does not meet:
"In addition to the criteria outlined above are all Americans residing in America who have said publically that either they:
A) Believe that the Iraq War was illegal and/or immoral from the beginning; or
B) Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or immorally, and have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it."
It baffles me that editors would seek to include Brook in this category. The RfC should stay. --Tsunami Butler 16:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Brook meets both A and B, and I've provided sources to prove it. But it's unimportant, so delete the RfC. Endlessmike 888 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Brook meets definition A ONLY if we use the term immoral the way he does. Brooks definition: immorally fighting with too much considerations about collateral damage (civilians), there are no innocent civilians. Immoral = sacrificing the lives of US soldiers. Immoral = using not enough force to bomb the enemy into surrender. Everything that does not lead to victory, like not using the atom bomb is immoral. [no doubt a clever argument] The authors of the category definitio obviously did not have Brook's usage of the term "moral" or "immoral" in mind. That's why your argument smells like a fained argument. rhetorics???LeaNder 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said, he clearly meets the technical definition, namely subset: ~"American who is publicly known for believing that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently,"~ (note the tildas -- it's a paraphrase). "Either","or","and" are operations in formal logic and perhaps if you drew Tsunami the Venn diagram he would get it. But I fear the problem here is not that he doesn't get it... The more general problem is that the category definition includes more members of the set than are excluded and is therefor pretty worthless. So why did you want to include him in a list of nincompoops? Andyvphil 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
At first I thought LaRouchies were trying to sabotage the Brook article, as he clearly fits the technical definition, and there had been previous Brook related vandalism. I eventually realized that the category itself is useless, and it was just a coicidence that Tsunami and LeaNder were also LaRouchies, so I stopped caring. If someone wants to fix it all up so that there are war on terror categories that are useful, more power to them, and I'll weigh in on where Brook belongs. Though there are so many different perspectives that if the categories were to be exact, there would be too many of them and again useless. So I don't know how to fix it. Endlessmike 888 05:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
EndlessMike, referring to LeaNder or myself as "LaRouchies" is both incorrect and a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Please cease and desist.
[LeaNder: Inserting comment into Tsunami Butler's mail. It continues below ] Makes me angry too, Tsunami. But I guess it only serves to denigrate everybody who critcizes Brook? :::But maybe libel ain't libel for objectivists or other people with heavy preconceptions. LeaNder
Andyvphil, for some reason you omit the obligatory latter part of this sentence: "Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or immorally, and have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it." As I understand it, Brook is known as supporter of the "justifications used to launch it." He simply became impatient at what he perceived as the slow pace of the carnage. --Tsunami Butler 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No, as I said, I rephrased it. The "justifications" part is not obligatory ("or") and I dropped it (separate subset) and I moved the "known critic" to the beginning of the sentence, where "believe" was redundant. (Technically, there is an excluded subset of known critics, who don't believe what they say, that would show up on the Venn diagram, but let's not muddy the waters.) Any American who is publicly known to believe the Iraq War is being waged incompetently is in the set. Your argument is with the definition, not Endlessmike, though his insistance on pointing out other subsets that Brook may qualify for hides the obviousness of that fact. Andyvphil 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Tsunami, the problem is that Brook thinks the war is “waged incompetently” AND according to his own definition: “immorally” (see my answer to Endless squeezed in above) AND has “become publicly known as critic of the war”. Category:American anti Iraq War activists The definition B of the category leaves open four possibilities, as listed below. Brook would fit no 1.
Believe that the Iraq war is being waged incompetently (a) OR immorally (b)
AND
Have become publicly known as critics of the war (c) OR the justifications used to launch it (d)
“a or b AND c or d”
  1. = a AND c
  2. = a AND d
  3. = b And c
  4. = b AND d
Endless: (see also my comment on your remark above) If I use the Brook case as a prism to look at the category definition. The categories below would be helpful.
  • A) Anti-Iraq-War activists
  • B) Iraq War supporters
  • C) Iraq-War-execution critics.[part of the military would be really early candidates for that categroy, more troops vs the slim army ready to move on]
I would try to keep the people who changed their minds on the Iraq war completely out of the Anti-Iraq-War-activist category. That would make it less crowded there, since the worse things turned out over there, the more politically convernient it becomes to join that camp. Brook would belong to both B and C. He would be even an early member of the C) camp.


And I would add an extra category for the clash-of-culture-warriors like Brook. And here I would put him in the conventional-military-approach-supporter compared e.g. Martin van Grevald's doubts if terrorism can ever be fought with conventional wars.
  • D) war-on-terrorism-escalation stategist
  • a) convential military approach
  • b) critical of conventional military approach
Brook would belong to category B), C and D) a)LeaNder 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category : War Escalation Advocates (current and former)

Now that I fixed the spelling in Ken Arromdee's 22 January 2007 post this discussion page shows up as an "American anti Iraq War activist". I guess use of the nowicki,/nowicki tags would fix that...but maybe looking at this tail-chasing mess will convince someone there to fix the definition. So I won't take the time now. Anyway, did anyone create or find a category equivalent to the title of this section? Andyvphil 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems the definition wasn't really much teamwork but concerning A) and B) is mainly the work of: User talk:132.241.245.245# 10 Category: Iraq War activists, definition. I left him a note. Wonder if he answers. Fixing it needs.
After this discussion I am absolutely puzzled why illegal AND immoral (is this an old Europe problem?) in A), and it's pretty obvious that definition B) leaves the gates wide open for all kind of Machiavellians to ride the latest public opinion tides. Was it was created with the intention to leave the gates wide open so the escalation advocates could slip back onto the lap of the multitude ...? Or is it inspired by the human all to human examples that inspired the definition?
I support the creation of the Category: War Escalation Advocates AND to add Yaron Brook to this category.LeaNder 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be a subjective category. What counts as escalation? LaszloWalrus 03:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critics of Islam

The category was deleted. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24#Category: Critics of Islam. Endlessmike 888 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Darnoconrad - Bibliography vs Biography

First of all welcome in the Yaron Brook section. Or should I have noticed you before?

Maybe I don't quite understand why you deleted bibliography in the (AIR) Yaron Brooks CV link? Biography for me is more a written account of someone's live. I would not expect what looks at first sight like a complete or at least close to complete list of Brooks publications behind a biography or a normal CV. As someone that appreciates very much the extensive work AIR's PR department put into the CV, I would appreciate if this would remain visible to readers.

I don't like the emphasis you put on Biography vs Curriculum Vita now. I don't think ARI's PR department ever had the intention to write a biography. LeaNder 13:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/a/r/Talk%7EYaron_Brook_39c5.html"