[spooneyG]

Browne is dead-on right!

[My2Cents]

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun....

What a freakin' idiot! (Harry Browne, not Saddam.)

[My2Cents]

Here's another slogan: History is written by the victors.

Harry Browne is a pathetic loser.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Browne is dead-on right!

So -- What was WWII all about? We shouldn't have declared war on Germany because they didn't attack us?

Does Browne admire Hitler that much?

[big gray tabby]

A pathetic little history lesson from a guy I used to respect. It's so slanted that I don't even know where to start, but if his view of current events is as skewed as his historical analysis, then there's little he can tell me about Iraq.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Browne is dead-on right!

Also Italy didn't attack us either. They didn't even sink any of our ships.

Mouselini did make the "trains run on time" though.

Maybe that is why we attacket him.

[theFIRMbss]

>George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

You know, there are lots
of people who remember
history, and still

find themselves condemned
to re-live brutalities
and ancient evils.

This quote, in a way,
blames victims presumptively
for being victims!

[harpseal]

There always will be thugs like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein in the world. But those thugs aren't dangerous to us until we create real grievances that cause millions of people to support the thugs with money, networking, and connections that allow the thugs to threaten us.

Brown is falming pice of dung for this line alone. There are 3,000 dead ameicans who were killed on September 11, 2001 when these thugs as he terms it engaged in an unprovoked attack against the USA. I find those that allign themselves with the agressors who for quite a while now have continuously attacked the USA mostly becuase we are the preeminent power in the world are just small minded cowardly apoligists for those who would do us harm. yes I define the first bombing of the WTC as doing us harm. Yes, I define the attack onthe USS Cole as doing us harm. Yes, I define so many other incidents as doing us harm.

So Harry Browne does not think it is grounds for war becuase Saddam violated the cease fire promises he made. That is crap. Saddam made promises to stop the unstoppable American army. Those promises are the ones that are most binding.

[truth_seeker]

"World War II was the direct result of World War I — and, more specifically, of the U.S. interfering in World War I." direct quote from Browne above.

This is typical of the assertions these self-appointed historians make. The US specifically caused WWII.

FYI I talked yesterday with a woman originally from the Czech Republic. She is young, growing up under communism, but spending her adult years after the breakup, of the Soviet empire.

For her, going back to WWII, Czechs were betrayed, by western allies. She thinks that Hitler might have been stopped at that point.

For Harry B., did the US cause Hitler to invade Poland? Harry B. is so full of sh!t that he is Browne.

[Poincare]

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

Iraq invaded a sovereign country, Kuwait. Saddam was chased out and in lieu of punishment was put on parole. Think of Saddam now as a parole violater. It doesn't matter that he agreed to his parole "at gunpoint". He has no ordinary rights.

Browne is dead-on wrong!

[HumanaeVitae]

What a boob Harry Browne is. If the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in WWI, there wouldn't have been a WWII? How do you know, you idiot?

[CholeraJoe]

Because the men who told the lies in 1991 — Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell — are the same men providing the "evidence" that we must go to war again.

In Rumsfeld's case, he was Chairman and CEO of General Instrument Corporation from 90-93. Drugs will do that to you, Harry.

[metesky]

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

I would guess that by Harry's reasoning, the Germans and the Japanese were (and are)free to disregard those unfortunate treaties we bullied them into signing in 1945.

[Sloth]

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

So we shouldn't complain if Japan attacks us again.

[rwfromkansas]

What a stupid article. Saddam made a promise and it doesn't matter if in this idiot's interpretation it was at the "point of a gun" or not. He made a promise.

[ggekko]

Browne's reading of history is bizarre and inaccurate. Fallacies refuted in order of appearance:

"But America, under no threat of attack by the Germans or Austrians, entered the war that year — ..."

Did you ever hear of the Lusitania??!! The sinking of an unarmed passenger ship by a German U-boat in international waters was in and of itself a a legeitmate "casus belli" under international law. German agression were, however, was not confined to the sinking of the Lusitania; other acts were committed as our informal cooperation with Britain became more apparent.

"The Allies imposed oppressive terms on the Germans ...."

President Wilson proposed an enlightned scheme called the Fourteen Points that avoided imposing all the war guilt on Germany. This program was rejected at Versailles by the British and the French. Clemenceau and David Lloyd George designed and implemented the relatively onerous Versailles treaty. The US had nothing to do with "losing the peace" between the wars.


"devastated by losing the resources to support itself, made to pay horrendous reparations...."

German reparations payments represented about 2% of their nominal GDP at that time. It is burden that could have been met relatively easily but elements within Germany prevented the Government from paying on a timely basis. The intent of these elements within German society (some industrialists, some military) was to force the government to repudiate the Versailles treaty. The weak Weimar governmen responded by printing money in order to maintain nominal compliance with the Versailles treay.

The Versailles treaty was too punitive but Germany could have met its obligations without resorting hyeprinflation as a policy tool. Many powerful elements in German society simply didn't want to so they tried to sabotage it. Mr. Browne's also completely ignores the role that the building of the German High Seas Fleet played in destablizing the European balance of power before WWI (see the book "Dreadnought"). Germany had no real strategic need of a navy but one was built anyway as a sop to the Kaiser's overweening vanity.

"and the existing governments in Russia and Germany most likely would have remained in power...."

This is pure speculation. A more likely scenario, absent US intervention, is that Germany would won because of the collapse and surrender of Russia. A German continental empire may not have been any more peacful than Hitler turned out to be as such a victory would have confirmed then extant notions of German superiority. Apostles of Germnay greatness would then egged the ruling cadre on to attack Engalnd again. Who knows?


"If the Allies hadn't imposed draconian peace terms on Germany in 1918, there probably would have been no Hitler..."

Presidentr Wilson implicitly repudiated the treaty of Versaiiles . It is just as easy to say that if the Allies had accepted Wilson's Fourteen Points there would have been no Hitler.


"There were no Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border...."

Saddam has made no efforts to hide the fact that he considers himself to be a latter day Gamel Adbul Nasser. He has repeatedly stated that he would like to unite the entire Middle East, sans Israel of course, under his suzerainty. It would have been an act of treasonous negligence on the part of the first Bush administration to ignore Iraq's act of aggression. If that had been done the price of oil today would be fifty dollars a barell and Hussein would be impregnable.

The problem with Libertarians is that don't seem to be able to recognize the reality of evil either in human relations or international relations. People and nations sometimes do evil things; this reality has been repeatedly confirmed by 6,000 years of human history.

[uncbob]

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

Hey Dumb ass
Surrender and terms are always made at the point of a gun

[Billthedrill]

Harry Browne should avoid discussing history with such an air of authority - he consistently embarrasses himself. Take this little gem for example:

In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today.

No, Harry it didn't, which is why we had WWI in the first place. By 1914 the Austo-Hungarian Empire was nearly as moribund as the Ottoman. Its ruling family was dying out, its economy was depressed, its armies obsolete, and its foreign policy very much a yo-yo between the dictates of the Holenzollerns in Germany, the French, and the Romanovs in Russia (themselves about to take a historical dive). Current world geopolitical alignments are entirely unlike those of the Great Powers era, in fact, they are polar opposites, which is what Huntington and Fukuyama pointed out a couple of years ago - were the Austro-Hungarians as powerful as the U.S. today they'd have succeeded in stomping out the Serbian rebellion with NO foreign interference and there would have been no WWI.

Browne is implying from an inadequate analogy to armed robbery that nations are not obligated to live up to terms of armistice. But those terms contain an exit codocil - such nations are perfectly free to discard those promises if they are willing to take the consequences, that is, the implied threat of renewal of hostilities. That is precisely the issue at hand.

[piasa]

No, he's looney on this one:

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

For one, we were not a mugger. Iraq was the mugger, and this is obvious to even "amateur historians." So no, the cease fire agreements were not made at the point of a gun any more than bail or probation agreements are made at the point of a gun. The author began this piece with a FLAWED premise.

Does this naive and misinformed Browne think that there is something morally wrong about arresting a mugger, restoring the victim's property, and then not releasing him until he can be brought to justice, ecept if he agrees to bail terms so that he can prepare to clear his name when called back into court to answer the charges? Or in this case, we have a country which has already been tried and convicted for its invasion of Kuwait, and as part of its probation it agreed to present evidence that it was no longer a threat to its neighbors in order to get time off with good behavior and early release.

Does the author think a bail agreement or probation terms signed by a mugger are "coerced" and "immoral?" Should we then keep the mugger in jail until trial and not bother with bail, and then make criminals serve their full terms- even the death penalty if that's what the judge decided, with no offering of early release for good behavior or even if it supplies restitution and everyone sees the criminal has reformed? Would the author of the piece then support us, since Iraq has already been tried and convicted and has not reformed nor abided by the terms it agreed to in porbation, to go ahead and carry out the suspended sentence? Or does the author suggest that we should allow criminals who violate probation to go ahead unpunished? what good would that accomplish? It would only encourage crimnals to act as they would know they could evade responsibility for their actions.

Defending a mugger is morally flawed, letting one go flout the law and evade justice is flawed, so look in the mirror, buddy.

[LouD]

Browne is dead-on right!

Welcome to FR, Troll.

You and Browne are both idiots.