Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HARRY BROWNE: "When will we learn?"
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | September 12, 2001 | Harry Browne

Posted on 09/12/2001 12:31:51 AM PDT by ouroboros

Wednesday, September 12, 2001


Harry Browne Harry Browne
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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 441-456 next last
To: Uriel1975
The fact is, once we have liquidated those terrorist elements (and their national harbors) responsible for this outrage, Foreign Policy should be re-assessed. The Founders never intended an imperial military which engaged in more than 170 multinational military exercises a year, with a military presence in over 100 countries**. They knew for a fact that such imperial overstrech had only one concrete result -- making a whole lot of enemies you don't need to make.

You're right about that. Now, would you please address exactly WHAT should be done, since we know from the example of the Soviet bloc's erosion that the end of imperialism doesn't equal peace?

And you know what? The Founders were brilliantly intelligent men. You are not.

Uh-oh! I am throwing the flag. Personal foul! Ad hominem attack! Fifteen yards!

I refuse to use a capital "F" when referring to the founders as if they were the equivalent of Grecian deities. That's the way a lot of people -- most of them libertarians -- speak of them. They were intelligent men. They formed the foundation of the most stable and prosperous nation on Earth. But they were far from perfect.

In revisiting the shortcomings and disgraces in our nation's recent and distant past, let's not foolishly suggest that they we can channel them for solutions to 21st Century dilemmas.

341 posted on 09/13/2001 3:43:31 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Uriel1975
Demidog is suggesting (and I agree) that the actions are morally equivalent.

Bullshit. There's a huge difference between the terrorist hijacking and the bombing of Serbia.

1. Terrorists gave no warning. NATO warned Milosevic explicitly that reprisals against Albanians would meet swift justice.

2. Terrorists hit civilian targets. NATO went after militarily significant targets.

3. Terrorists specific goal was to kill civilians. NATO's specific goal was to hurt Milosevic's military command-and-control systems.

If you can't see the difference between these things, you truly have no moral standard. Everything's a wash.
342 posted on 09/13/2001 3:45:25 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
Actually, Hitler referred to Switzerland as the true hedgehog of Europe. The German high command had assembled a plan called "Operation Christmas" to invade Switzerland. They called it off because the cost would be too high.

Lip service to cover the gold operation.

The mountains would make bombing frighteningly costly for the Krauts because any Swiss with a 20mm would be able to hit most German aircraft.

Someone should've told the French this.

343 posted on 09/13/2001 3:48:40 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
So, you are such a wise man. You have obviously (while downplaying the constitution) well documented your wisdom (sarcasm!) with rants and namecalling to those who don't share your fascist/communist/globalist views. My statements simply reflect my observations of your rantings and Uriel/Demidog/etc. use of actual quotes from our framers. And yes, if you want me to start throwing quotes, try me! What happened is tragic, but if we think we can somehow inflict unjustified suffering for our fraudelent causes and expect peace on our own doorstep, we are deluded indeed.
344 posted on 09/13/2001 3:48:58 PM PDT by bunkerhill2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Uriel1975
The Founders never intended an imperial military which engaged in more than 170 multinational military exercises a year, with a military presence in over 100 countries**. They knew for a fact that such imperial overstrech had only one concrete result -- making a whole lot of enemies you don't need to make.
And you know what? The Founders were brilliantly intelligent men. You are not. The Founders were Right. You are Wrong.
That's the hard Truth. Deal.

Let Hamilton speak to your hollow bluster directly:

"A further resource for influencing the conduct of European nations toward us, in this respect, would arise from the establishment of a federal navy. There can be no doubt that the continuance of the Union under an efficient government would put it in our power, at a period not very distant, to create a navy which, if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight if thrown into the scale of either of two contending parties. This would be more peculiarly the case in relation to operations in the West Indies. A few ships of the line, sent opportunely to the reinforcement of either side, would often be sufficient to decide the fate of a campaign, on the event of which interests of the greatest magnitude were suspended. Our position is, in this respect, a most commanding one. And if to this consideration we add that of the usefulness of supplies from this country, in the prosecution of military operations in the West Indies, it will readily be perceived that a situation so favorable would enable us to bargain with great advantage for commercial privileges. A price would be set not only upon our friendship, but upon our neutrality. By a steady adherence to the Union we may hope, erelong, to become the arbiter of Europe in America, and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate. "

--Federalist Paper #11

Your support of Harry Browne in blaming the victim is akin to the man who disapproves of the lady's dress after she is raped. No act of this nature is justified by anger, or is justifiably retaliatory in its totality or is directly the result of our foreign policy. Acts of this scope are within the capability of our (depraved!!!) human nature. This traitorous accusation of our policies is unpatriotic in effect, political in intent, and cowardly at heart.

345 posted on 09/13/2001 3:57:02 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
These quislings like to try to claim we deserved the attack because we don't follow their failed party's platform on foreign policy. More than likely, it was the L.P. moral-liberal's lauding of drugs, abortion, obscenity, blasphemy, pornography, prostitution, perversion, promiscuity, sodomy, and homosexuality which made these Islamists feel justified in their murder. Now this is interesting, Jihad.

How does it feel to be the right hand of the freedom hating body politic?

I just love it when people who vote "conservative" start spouting off about LIBERTY. You hate freedom just as much as the liberals. God forbid, your neighbor might actually be doing something that YOU personally disapprove of.

346 posted on 09/13/2001 3:58:22 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Uriel1975
A lot of retaliation is in order. Anything less would be Munich.

Retaliation against those responsible, absolutely. But, retaliation should not include the incineration of non-combatant civilians who took no part in the acts.

But I am worried that it will not be. I hope I'm wrong. I fear for my country if our retaliation is anything less than completely thorough.

If our retaliation is conducted in the same wreckless manner of our past military actions it will spawn more terrorism.

...a massive re-assessment of our Interventionist foreign policy is in order. But I am extremely worried that that won't happen either. I hope I'm wrong. But I'd be shocked if it does. Foreign Interventionism is too useful a politician's tool.

Our Congressmen can retreat to an underground bunker capable of withstanding a nuclear strike. We have no such luxury. While politicians order bombing raids against non-combatant civilians and then run for cover we are left to contend with the consequences of their policies. When I first learned about the attack two days ago I felt a great swell of anger toward politicians. The lives of thousands of Americans have been snuffed out as a result of political pandering to special interest groups. This all could have been avoided.

347 posted on 09/13/2001 3:59:44 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
This all could have been avoided.
And it's not that difficult:
1. Privatize aid to Israel (start with a generous US grant).
2. End federal involvement in energy.
3. Pull all US forces out of Middle East.
348 posted on 09/13/2001 4:04:49 PM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Electrical grids and civilian water supplies, military targets. I agree we probably babbled enough warnings, but spent unnecessarily billions for a fabricated case of ethnic cleansing/genocide which you will find did not happen. Am I justifying Milosevic? No, as I do not justify the ICC. Serbia was attempted to restore order to a province that had huge illegal immigration problems and the largest heroin pipeline to Western Europe (all well documented in European as well as our own governmental documents). NATO, another organization I feel has outlived its purpose, broke its own Charter. Serbia never attacked nor invaded any of the NATO counries. NATO used the same justifications that Hitler used to invade Poland and Czekslovakia. As far as diplomacy goes, I would hardly call the ultimatum of surrendered sovereignty a call for peace. No, this Kosovo campaign was fabricated and many innocent were killed, collateral damage or not. And to think we even got to deplete national security assets for this waste of an adventure at the expense of our true national security.
349 posted on 09/13/2001 4:05:29 PM PDT by bunkerhill2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

Comment #350 Removed by Moderator

To: Texaggie79, A Navy Vet, Demidog
You still apparently have not read the link. Kuwait is a valid ally.

I read the link -- and it had nothing to do with 1990 (did you read the link?). Kuwait's undemocratic, dictatorial autocracy may be thanking us now for keeping them in power all these years (which is to be expected)... but that is entirely beside the point. In 1990, Kuwait was entirely irrelevant to American National Interest. It really doesn't matter which undemocratic dictator (the Kuwaiti autocracy or the Iraqi autocracy) sells us Kuwaiti oil; We had no compelling National Interest in Kuwait before it was introduced into the World community (like Iraq, it is a relatively recent post-colonial nation-state), and we have no compelling National Interest in them now. Funny how this nation prospered for 185 years before the nation-state of "Kuwait" was ever invented.

Your principles rely upon a perfect world. Mine are on REALITY. Oil is not being drilled here, as it should be.... Israel, and Iraq are both places we should be. Saddam is an international thread, and should be taken out of power. I agree, with you that we should not just keep bombing them. We need to KILL Saddam. That is the only way we, as Americans can be safe.

Or, we could've just ignored him in the first place. What do you suppose he intended to do with all that Kuwaiti oil? Drink it?

And as to your complaint that "Oil is not being drilled here"... gee, wonder why? Fact is, were it not for US military interventionism in the region, Middle Eastern oil would likely form a much smaller "supply pool" for US oil demand than it does now, as US importers have little desire to rely on suppliers which, without US protection, could disappear at a moments notice. Of course, without this "supply pool", demand would have to be filled here at home, instead. This would set the interests of the American working class (who want cheap gasoline) against the environmentalists, a conservative political dream scenario.

Instead, the interests of the American working class have been satisfied by a militarily-enforced reliance on foreign Oil, cheered on by the unthinking Interventionist war-mongers -- who never consider how they are endangering the blood of American citizens by making unnecessary enemies in every "neighborhood" in the world. Why? 'Cause deep down you care a lot more about cheap foreign oil than the blood of your fellow citizens. That's a fact, jack.

I will agree that there is several places we are that we should not be.

Wow, just brilliant. The heir to Washington you are indeed, Tex.

And stop getting into the personal attacks. Because you aren't even CLOSE to the founders.

Cry me a river, little man. I'm a heck of a lot closer to the Founder's viewpoints -- religiously, philsophically, and politically -- than you have ever been; and you well know it, too. And, unless you start thinking for the first time in your life, than you will ever be, either.

"Foreign Policy should be re-assessed. The Founders never intended an imperial military which engaged in more than 170 multinational military exercises a year, with a military presence in over 100 countries**." While I can mostly agree with that statement, do you really believe it was not in our national interests to stop Saddam from taking control of the oil reserves in the region? Most of the experts say Kuwait was just the first stop.

As I've indicated above, yes it is in the interests of US domestic oil producers to have Middle Eastern oil carry an appropriately high "risk premium" reflecting the natural instability of the region, without the US government spending billions (even tens of billions of dollars) a year to "hide" that Risk-Premium behind the aegis of military adventurism.

So ultimately, yes, I am an advocate of domestic US oil development rather than dependence on foreign oil. And if US oil consumers did not expect the US military to "maintain" the supply of cheap oil from the middle east, they would prefer dependable domestic producers to the (in that scenario) much more risky foreign sources.

The expenditure of billions of dollars a year in US military interventionism hides the true cost, and true risks, of foreign oil, thus diverting that demand from domestic producers. But this military adventurism does have a hidden cost -- it provides lots and lots of anti-American video footage for radicals like Bin Laden to enrage the Arab man on the street who otherwise would care very little about a peaceful Republic some 6,000 miles away.

All that said, Saudi Arabia alone contains considerably more proven Oil reserves than Iraq and Kuwait combined. If (in 1990) you are determined that we must be dependent on foreign oil, conclude a treaty of Defense with Saudi Arabia with an agreement to station 11 nuclear delivery vehicles (under US military control & supervision) on Saudi soil -- 10 tactical launch warheads to eliminate any Iraqi divisions that cross the Iraq/Saudi frontier, and 1 strategic launch warhead targeted on Baghdad. Inform Baghdad of the arrangement, and sit back. Oh, and Saudi Arabia can pay us, say, $1 billion dollars a year, per warhead, by way of a thank-you; and also agree to support US diplomacy in every international forum, lest we withdraw our benevolent protection.

I am against military interventionism on principle, but if you insist upon it, let's lay down three principles:

1.) Make no more enemies than we have to;
2.) Endanger no American blood when Massive Deterrence will do the job instead; and
3.) At least make a profit on the deal.

351 posted on 09/13/2001 4:13:20 PM PDT by Uriel1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: That Poppins Woman
"Tell us, CWOJackson ... were you one of the merchants who patriotically raised the gas prices to $5/gal yesterday?"

Naw, I with my two sons was too busy giving blood. We know you were busy spouting your sick screed. I guess we both had things to do yesterday that was important to us.

352 posted on 09/13/2001 4:14:28 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Uriel1975
Um, it has everything to do with 1990. Had we not saved them , they would not "have our back" on oil today.

What do you suppose he intended to do with all that Kuwaiti oil? Drink it?

Um I though you had a brain Uriel. Actually I didn't your poor interpretation of the Bible in the past had already pointed that out. What is better Uriel, a free market with competition or a Monopoly? Do you really think that we would not have suffered had Saddam taken control of all oil in the Middle east? And you are a fool if you don't think that was his intention.

As for your founders statement; it is obvious that you are severely demented and need to seek psychological help.

Of course you are right Uriel, in your own little twisted world. Let me know when REALITY becomes a concept to you.

353 posted on 09/13/2001 4:31:52 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

Comment #354 Removed by Moderator

To: Uriel1975
"What do you suppose he intended to do with all that Kuwaiti oil? Drink it?"

Wow. That is such a naive question, I don't know how to respond. Other than to point out that pretty much ALL of our military and intelligence people figured Saddam would eventually move on to Saudi Arabia and possibly others if left to his own devices. I'm no geo-political expert, but my own layman's observation of Saddam's m.o. tells me that would be extremely hurtful to US interests.

The world runs on oil; our economy runs on oil; countless jobs depend on reasonable oil prices; our entire standard of living relys on a stable oil environment; oil is power. So we should have let Saddam eventually take over a significant portion of the world's oil reserves and deal with whatever demands he would make...including outrageous prices or no shipments at all? Boy, I'm glad you libertarians are not in authority - scary.

355 posted on 09/13/2001 5:08:02 PM PDT by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
"and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate."

Try reading. Hamilton speaks directly in favor of my position, you illiterate twit. (That's fair turnaround for your "hollow bluster" comment, so don't whine).

Your support of Harry Browne in blaming the victim is akin to the man who disapproves of the lady's dress after she is raped. No act of this nature is justified by anger, or is justifiably retaliatory in its totality or is directly the result of our foreign policy. Acts of this scope are within the capability of our (depraved!!!) human nature. This traitorous accusation of our policies is unpatriotic in effect, political in intent, and cowardly at heart.

No. It is the realistic observation that Clinton's policy of "wag-the-dog" bombings of Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan would infuriate people in the region. That they would have repercussions.

That is exactly the kind of "foreign policy" we should avoid.

You think that Bill Clinton's legacy of interventionist warmongering is something to preserve?? Something to emulate?? It is not. It is something to withdraw from. My disapproval of Bush, Sr's actions is only a matter of consistency; in terms of the total number of international military "police actions" and empire-building operations, Clinton was the worse offender.

These Clintonian empire-building, wag-the-dog warfighting "foreign policies" do have the consequence of making enemies we do not need.

Once we have liquidated the State and quasi-State elements responsible for this atrocity, we will have an opportunity to retrench and withdraw from the kind of mindless military adventurism which has characterized the post-Cold-War era, largely courtesy of Bill Clinton. We should do so.

356 posted on 09/13/2001 5:13:24 PM PDT by Uriel1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
Shut the hell up!

Yeah! There oughta be a law against people saying unpopular things. Lets do away with the 1st amendment, we have the excuse now, an attack. Hell, throw out the whole bill of rights while we have the chance.

/sarcasm>

357 posted on 09/13/2001 5:19:20 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill2
Electrical grids and civilian water supplies, military targets. I agree we probably babbled enough warnings, but spent unnecessarily billions for a fabricated case of ethnic cleansing/genocide which you will find did not happen. Am I justifying Milosevic? No, as I do not justify the ICC. Serbia was attempted to restore order to a province that had huge illegal immigration problems and the largest heroin pipeline to Western Europe (all well documented in European as well as our own governmental documents). NATO, another organization I feel has outlived its purpose, broke its own Charter. Serbia never attacked nor invaded any of the NATO counries. NATO used the same justifications that Hitler used to invade Poland and Czekslovakia. As far as diplomacy goes, I would hardly call the ultimatum of surrendered sovereignty a call for peace. No, this Kosovo campaign was fabricated and many innocent were killed, collateral damage or not. And to think we even got to deplete national security assets for this waste of an adventure at the expense of our true national security.

I'm not going to debate you on whether NATO should have even undertaken the campaign in Serbia. I have my own doubts; however, trying to make some kind of moral equivalence between the destruction of the World Trace Center and Serbia is just plain whacko.
358 posted on 09/13/2001 5:31:20 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
That's SOP with the ideologues. Sheesh. How many times do we hear the ideologues spouting off their nonsense about how everyone is conspiring to rob them of their rights, and how evil the U.S. government is, how they're all evil jack booted thugs, yada, yada, yada. We expect any minute to hear one of them claim the planes were sent in by the owners of the towers for the insurance money, or by the CIA in order to cause riot and confusion in order to invoke martial law. Let the ideologues renounce their moral-liberalism, and then the goals of the terrorists will have been thwarted.

What a way to throw an olive branch back in my face. Talk like a normal person for once, would you?

If I cut out my crap, and you cut out yours, we might be able to talk man - to - man.

Do you understand? Let us make peace with one another.

359 posted on 09/13/2001 5:33:54 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet, Texaggie79
Um, it has everything to do with 1990. Had we not saved them , they would not "have our back" on oil today.

Nope. Oil prices would've spiked, and absent a policy of military interventionism, we'd have to drill Alaska instead.

The Unions are already at odds with the enviro-nuts today over Alaskan oil. How much stronger do you suppose working class demand for oil would have been, in 1990, without a US policy of empire-building promoting dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East?

The world runs on oil; our economy runs on oil; countless jobs depend on reasonable oil prices; our entire standard of living relys on a stable oil environment; oil is power.

Well, hum-golly, I never thought of that (/sarcasm).

All the more reason to drill Alaska. Last I checked, Alaskan's weren't in the habit of throwing a dirty little regional war every few years.

Ultimately, you folks are perfectly willing to sacrifice your neighbor's blood for cheap Middle Eastern oil -- oil which could be drilled at home in the US instead -- and claim this callous indifference to your neighbor's lives to be "patriotism".

That's exactly what I've been saying of you.

And, guess what -- September 11, 2001, the Interventionists empire-building policies paid their dividends.
Rather than blaming libertarians (who are perfectly willing to exact vengeance now that the Interventionists have yet again enraged an enemy half-way around the globe and gotten their fellow-citizens killed as a result), you may as well acknowledge the facts -- the Founders argued against a policy of US military adventurism. They had their reasons. And you still don't understand why they thought the way they did.

But some of us do. To callously endanger your fellow-citizens over your own desire to manage the world's affairs, is treasonous in the bloody results it obtains.

Oh, and Tex...

Um I though you had a brain Uriel. Actually I didn't your poor interpretation of the Bible in the past had already pointed that out.

Your little potshot is just silly. Since you want to make a point of this, let's be honest: We are not on the same mental playing field, and you know it. There is probably not a single field of intellectual endeavor in which you are not completely outclassed. You know it as well as I do. Don't even pretend that you can kid yourself on this.

That isn't a boast; just an observation of fact.

360 posted on 09/13/2001 5:47:24 PM PDT by Uriel1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 441-456 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson