HARRY BROWNE: "When will we learn?"

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | September 12, 2001 | Harry Browne

[ouroboros]

Wednesday, September 12, 2001

---

---

When will we learn?

---

By Harry Browne

---

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

The terrorist attacks against America comprise a horrible tragedy. But they shouldn't be a surprise.

It is well known that in war, the first casualty is truth – that during any war truth is forsaken for propaganda. But sanity was a prior casualty: it was the loss of sanity that led to war in the first place.

Our foreign policy has been insane for decades. It was only a matter of time until Americans would have to suffer personally for it. It is a terrible tragedy of life that the innocent so often have to suffer for the sins of the guilty.

When will we learn that we can't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?

President Bush has authorized continued bombing of innocent people in Iraq. President Clinton bombed innocent people in the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. President Bush, senior, invaded Iraq and Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in Libya and invaded Grenada. And on and on it goes.

Did we think the people who lost their families and friends and property in all that destruction would love America for what happened?

When will we learn that violence always begets violence?

Teaching lessons

Supposedly, Reagan bombed Libya to teach Muammar al-Qaddafi a lesson about terrorism. But shortly thereafter a TWA plane was destroyed over Scotland, and our government is convinced it was Libyans who did it.

When will we learn that "teaching someone a lesson" never teaches anything but resentment – that it only inspires the recipient to greater acts of defiance.

How many times on Tuesday did we hear someone describe the terrorist attacks as "cowardly acts"? But as misguided and despicable as they were, they were anything but cowardly. The people who committed them knowingly gave their lives for whatever stupid beliefs they held.

But what about the American presidents who order bombings of innocent people – while the presidents remain completely insulated from any danger? What would you call their acts?

When will we learn that forsaking truth and reason in the heat of battle almost always assures that we will lose the battle?

Losing our last freedoms

And now, as sure as night follows day, we will be told we must give up more of our freedoms to avenge what never should have happened in the first place.

When will we learn that it makes no sense to give up our freedoms in the name of freedom?

What to do?

What should be done?

First of all, stop the hysteria. Stand back and ask how this could have happened. Ask how a prosperous country isolated by two oceans could have so embroiled itself in other people's business that someone would want to do us harm. Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business.

Second, resolve that we won't let our leaders use this occasion to commit their own terrorist acts upon more innocent people, foreign and domestic, that will inspire more terrorist attacks in the future.

Third, find a way, with enforceable constitutional limits, to prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America.

Patriotism?

There are those who will say this article is unpatriotic and un-American – that this is not a time to question our country or our leaders.

When will we learn that without freedom and sanity, there is no reason to be patriotic?

---

Harry Browne was the 2000 Libertarian presidential candidate. More of his articles can be read at HarryBrowne.org, and his books are available at HBBooks.com.

[Rocky]

Harry Browne, traitor.

[Torie]

Thanks Harry for reminding me why at least your brand of libertarianism is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

[Demidog]

Many of these European governments have been allowing safe passage for known terrorists THROUGH their countries for decades.

So have we. That's completely not the issue. In fact Switzerland doesn't have the reach that other super powers have. So the risk of delayed retribution is virtually nil.

The risk of getting caught or killed while attempting to execute a terrorist attack is too great. And then you have the uncomfortable fact which you must avoid and that is that Switzerland has never done anything to anyone which would incite terrorism.

In our current situation, it is exremely difficult to tell who was responsible because we have angered so many different countries in our many escapades.

It could be China hiring mercenaries. It could be Yugoslavia. It could be Palestine. It could be Somolia, Haiti, Jordan, Turkey or Greece. It could even be Columbia.

Impossible to tell because we have meddled in so many places around the globe. Switzerland: 0. Nuetrality is not only a moral choice, it is a sane choice. And contrary to what dick-measuring cowards (who've never actually been in a firefight) imagine, Nuetrality wouldn't preclude us from using military force to repell an attack on our country.

[Roscoe]

Harry and the Fifth Columnists.

[DugwayDuke]

"Was the dropping of the bomb on Japan cowardly?" No, that a red herring and you know it.

"Just remember what you said above as others on this forum propose turning entire nations into radioactive parking lots."

Countries that actively support mass terrorist acts should glow in the dark.

"Now who ever suggested the perps weren't evil?"

No one that I know of. I am making the point that those who advocate appeasement as a means of dealing with terrorists are evil. That includes Mr. Browne and anyone here in this forum that attempts to blame the United States for or justify these acts of terrorism. I do not need to "ping" any one in particular. Read the post in this forum if you have any doubts about who I mean.

"There are also far too many fascists for Jesus on this forum."

The company of "fascists for Jesus" is far to be prefered than the anti-semitism, racism, and isolationism that masquerades as conservatism in some quarters.

[Cultural Jihad]

Nuetrality wouldn't preclude us from using military force to repell an attack on our country.

Gee. That certainly hasn't happened yet, eh? One supposes we ought to take the estates of these terrorists to civil court for all the property destruction, pain and suffering, loss of wages, and then go home and fuggetaboutit. Harry Browne should be banished or jailed for his seditious pissing on the graves of dreaded statists before the dead bodies of countless policemen and firefighters were even cold. He is not only a failed financial advisor, a failed politician, but a failed human being, too.

[tpaine]

I'm not a 'L' libertarian, so I vote for whomever I choose. --- And a punk like you doesn't want me for an enemy, - trust me.

[Skip Ripley]

Pack a lunch "t", you'll need it.

[FormerLurker]

Iraq was a clear danger to the stability of the Middle East at the time of the Gulf War. Serbia is messy, but it was a danger to the stability of Europe. On each intervention, we were asked to assist. Those actions WERE in the interest of the United States and the rest of the World.

We should have probably hit Iraq harder and wiped out Suddam Hussien at the time we were there. We should probably not have sided with the KLA in the Serbian situation. We could have perhaps gone in with NATO AND the Russians to end the hostilities between the two factions.

Mistakes were made. Hindsight is always 20/20. BUT, none of that compares to what those raving lunatics who consider themselves blessed by Allah did yesterday. We didn't deliberately kill (or try to kill) 50,000 innocent souls and then deny we did it. We did what we did to maintain some semblence of stability to regions that are crucial to not just our own security, but that of the World.

Although on principle I've agreed with what the Libertarian candidate may have said in the past, I'm glad he didn't get elected.

[BluesDuke]

Harry Browne who speaks for the Libertarian Party.

Actually, Mr. Browne is only the party's most recent presidential candidate but he does not speak officially for the party. Here is an extract from an official statement offered by the actual chairman of the LP, Mr. James W. Lark, earlier today:

The Libertarian Party condemns the vicious and barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There is no excuse for such savage acts. No legitimate political or religious ideology can justify the murder of thousands of innocent people. These actions, and the revulsion they cause to all decent people around the world, demonstrate in the starkest way possible that the initiation of force is never an appropriate way to settle political or social differences. The result of such violence is more hatred, more grieving relatives and friends, more tombstones -- and, ultimately, more violence. Libertarians unequivocally reject the initiation of force as a solution to the disagreements between people and between governments.

The Libertarian Party calls for justice to be meted out to the terrorists responsible for the attacks. However, we encourage the United States government to be sure that any response is appropriate and measured. Action should not be taken that will cause innocent people in other countries to be killed because of the actions of terrorists. Such a response would only continue the cycle of violence and revenge. (Emphases added. - BD)

You note that in the foregoing there is nothing that could be taken to mean we have no right to respond appropriately to Tuesday morning's act of war. Remember: the party stands officially against the initiation of force, and one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know who initiated the force here - and it sure as hell was not American Airlines, either. (I would quibble with calling it "terrorist" attacks - it was an act of war, in plain language.) And "appropriate and measured" does not equate to "little or nothing," after all; we have been the victims of an obscene initiation of force and are entitled to respond appropriately - but "appropriate" does not mean mere wanton assault against Afghanistan; it does mean (it ought to mean) pronounced and profound military attack against Afghanistan's military capacity, that its ability to wage war of any sort against anyone is crippled even more profoundly. That is the view from this libertarian (lower case; I am registered to the LP but have had doubts about the party itself over a few months, and this is neither the time nor place to enunciate them).

But assuming Harry Browne speaks officially for the Libertarian Party is a mistake at least as profound as that mistake (which I remember only too well and too furiously leveled at the party in question) of assuming that anything out of Richard Nixon's mouth post-Watergate was official Republican comment; or, anything out of Jimmy Carter's mouth was official Democratic comment. Let Mr. Browne rant his bloody head off. But he is only a former candidate. He holds, to my knowledge, no official LP position and cannot be deemed an official LP spokesman.

[Alan Chapman]

...innocent people in Iraq.... that's a $!@$ing hoot...Iraq should be a parking lot. We should have bombed MORE and not left so many alive to retaliate.

Non-combatant civilians going about their lives, who have no control over the actions of their governments, are innocent people. Because they look different than you, speak a different language, and have different religious beliefs makes them no less human.

Indiscriminately dropping bombs, killing people, destroying homes, and businesses in an attempt to get at the threat is inexcusable.

The US sold war machines to Iraq so they could fight Iran. Then they used those war machines to invade Kuwait.

We gave foreign-aid to the USSR for 50 years and then they invaded Afghanistan with it. Then we trained Afghanistan resistance fighters to fight back.

Our meddling in the affairs of other nations is what instigated this retaliation. It was only a matter of time. People like you believe that not only do you posses the wisdom to rule the lives of your neighbors. But, also the lives of people in foreign countries. You sit in the comfort of your home cheering on our military excursions and believe you are being patriotic.

Your solution to every problem is FORCE and VIOLENCE. So, you support and elect politicians who share your beliefs. Those politicians put American lives at risk by meddling in the affairs of foreign countries. We give countries foreign-aid and their enemies hate us. We sign treaties and their enemies hate us. We fly over cities and drop bombs on non-combatant civilians to punish their leaders and they hate us.

President Bush said this attack was an attack on freedom. Our "freedom" is the furthest thing from the minds of terrorists. Their objective was to influence our foreign policy.

We must help fellow humans across the globe.

Then get on a plane and go help them yourself. Don't demand that somebody else go put their life on the line so you can feel noble and righteous.

[DAnconia55]

"Who Is saying we shouldn't bomb these people back into the Stone Age?"

Harry Browne who speaks for the Libertarian Party

No, he speaks for him. And he's wrong. If he's saying there should be no retaliation, he's dead wrong.

Your "righteous" call for a return to "Constitutionalism" is pointless

Thanks for admitting this. I wish more statist republicans would just come out and admit that they do not like the Constitution. It'd make debate much easier.

Bringing our troops home only means that others will have to stand alone in this fight. Only cowards take that course.

In WHICH fight? You mean in Serbia, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, South America?

Good. Let them stand alone, and defend their own nations and their own regions. That is how it is supposed to be.

[DAnconia55]

"Mistakes were made" - FormerLurker and Bill Klinton.

[Demidog]

You cannot hide your head in the sand from the evil these people commit in the world.

Not only that, some of us keep voting for them.

[Demidog]

That certainly hasn't happened yet, eh?

Four times in 200 years. The first two were not due to our foreign policy blunders. The second two most certainly were. Did you have a point other than to claim Harry should be thrown in jail because you are a hatefull warmonger?

[Texaggie79]

Our meddling in the affairs of other nations is what instigated this retaliation.

But we are "Non-combatant civilians going about their lives, who have no control over the actions of their governments". Now you see what kind of BULL $#!# that is. Iraqies support their country's actions, or they would revolt. Either way Iraq needs some major bomb treatment today. You may enjoy locking yourself in your home and not giving a $#!$ about anyone else, but Isreal, is not only GOD's country (the same GOD we founded this nation upon), it is a necessary ally we must support in order to keep a friend in the middle east. We WILL NOT turn a blind eye.

[Republican Wildcat]

There are those who will say this article is unpatriotic and un-American

Indeed--because it is.

[Texaggie79]

This is something that I question why I ever argue with you. Your opinion is SOOO in the minority. We will never become the hermit neighbor in the neighborhood of the globe.