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

Skip to comments.

I want my country back(HARRY BROWNE BARF ALERT)
World Net Daily ^ | December 5, 2002 | Harry Browne

Posted on 12/06/2002 5:19:32 AM PST by Sparta

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: December 5, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Thoughts on the American empire …

Is it an empire?

Whenever I say that America has become an empire, someone is sure to say I'm being ridiculous.

But what do you call a government that has tried (usually successfully) to force "regime changes" in Panama, Grenada, South Vietnam, Cuba, Guatemala, Chile, Rhodesia, South Africa, Iraq (in 1963), the Philippines, Serbia, Afghanistan (twice), Iran and several other countries that don't immediately come to mind?

What do you call a government that has troops stationed in a hundred countries around the world?

What do you call a government whose leader says everyone must play by his rules or risk being attacked?

America the protector?

But then someone is sure to instruct me that "American troops are stationed abroad because those countries asked for them."

Yes, people in foreign countries want American troops there – just about as much as the Poles enjoyed having Soviet troops in Poland.

American troops are in those countries only because the governments of those countries were bribed with your money to allow American troops in.

How would you feel if there were Chinese troops wandering around your city?

Or even German troops?

So how do you think Germans feel about seeing American troops walking their streets – or Korean or Japanese citizens watching American soldiers commit murders and rapes in their countries without facing local prosecution?

World government

America rules the world – by force.

And that's ironic. Because for as long as I can remember, conservatives have been railing against the threat of world government.

But now we actually have a form of world government – a government run by George Bush and enforced by the American military – and most conservatives are all for it.

Our government decides what rules Iraq must live by, and if Iraq breaks those rules it can be bombed or invaded.

Our government decides which governments are legitimate and which must be replaced, which dictatorships are evil and which are "our partners in the War on Terrorism."

North Korea

Some people can't understand why our government is getting ready to attack Iraq, but is ignoring North Korea – which admits to having nuclear weapons and the ability to fire them at Alaska.

The difference between the two countries is simple: North Korea has the means to hurt us, Iraq doesn't.

In the past 50 years, our government has attacked many countries – Panama, Grenada, the Sudan, Afghanistan (twice), Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq and others. But it has never attacked a country that had the capability to hurt America.

Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel – all have nuclear weapons. So we participate in "constructive engagement" with those countries.

But Iraq? No threat to us, so we can bomb it and invade it with impunity.

Fighting terrorism

After 9-11, some people said we should try to find the people responsible, capture them and prosecute them. They were largely laughed at as being unrealistic. Only by bombing and devastating Afghanistan could we be sure to get Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. And our president assured us that they would be brought to justice.

Now it's a year later. Osama bin Laden hasn't been captured or killed. Al-Qaida is alive and well. So is anyone concerned?

Of course not. Our attention is directed to Iraq – even though there's no public evidence that Iraq has anything to do with al-Qaida – and a lot of evidence that they're enemies of each other. Suddenly, Osama bin Laden is no longer important.

This doesn't make sense if you think the object is to end terrorism. But it makes perfect sense if the object is to demonstrate the empire's power to intimidate.

Why do they hate us?

For the past year, we've been hearing over and over that the Muslims and others around the world hate us because of our freedoms and our prosperity.

If that's true, the terrorists have won – because we're rapidly giving up our freedoms, and the loss of those freedoms is destroying our ability to prosper.

But, actually, it is only Americans who say that our freedoms and prosperity are the reason foreigners hate us. If you ask the foreigners, they make it clear that it's America's bullying foreign policy they detest.

Liberty and security

We're also told that we must give up some liberty for the sake of security. But that's not true.

For most of our history, Americans enjoyed both liberty and security from foreign threats.

But, as Tim O'Brien has pointed out, while it's possible to have both liberty and security, you can't have an empire as well. Once the American government decided to run the world, Americans were forced to choose between liberty and security – because you can't have all three. Once you become an empire, either liberty or security must go.

Most likely, however, we will lose both liberty and security. We're losing our liberties, but innocent Americans will continue to be hurt by terrorists because of what our government is doing overseas.

Hate America?

Whenever I write on these subjects, I invariably get e-mails accusing me of hating America or "blaming America first."

Quite the contrary. I love America, and I can't stand quietly by while the land of peace and liberty is being destroyed.

I love the America of the Constitution and limited government – not the America of the Patriot Act and the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security.

I love the America that Washington and Jefferson said should be far removed from all the age-old quarrels of Europe and Asia, while trading benevolently with people all over the world – not the America that has troops in a hundred countries while our own government prohibits us from peaceful trading with dozens of countries.

In short, I want my country back.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dupe; idiot; libertarians; republic; waambulance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 next last
To: Thane_Banquo
A government which keeps troops in over 100 countries is undermining its own national defense by trying to police the world.
81 posted on 12/06/2002 7:12:33 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
"Then, pull our troops out of the middle east, pull out of the UN, forget those freaking countries and make it damn clear that if they mess with us in any way again, we will hold all Islamic countries equally responsible and bomb them all."

Then why not do it now? 9-11 wasn't the first time they attacked us. After we destroy the crazy Muslims we can pull our troops back. (Though we both know that won't happen).

82 posted on 12/06/2002 7:15:15 AM PST by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Congresswoman McCarthy's "Our Lady of Peace" Update
83 posted on 12/06/2002 7:15:24 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Questions abound.

What did you hope to accomplish by posting this article?

And what was your screen name before you recently RE-signed up?

84 posted on 12/06/2002 7:16:20 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Harry was actually spouting this trash on 9/12/2001.

I know. I wondered why he actually waited a day. It was probably out of respect for the victims. < /sarcasm>

85 posted on 12/06/2002 7:16:36 AM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
I would say A. He was subversive in Chile or B. Kidnapping is common in Latin America.

Ive seen little credible evidence Pinochet went overboard. Franco did for a while though I consider him better than the alternative.

86 posted on 12/06/2002 7:16:59 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: weikel
After reading some of your posts,would i be wrong in assuming you're an avid Nietzche reader?:)
87 posted on 12/06/2002 7:17:03 AM PST by smpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: smpc
Actually im not. The author I think Ive most avidly read in the last 2 years was Terry Pratchett( check out the discworld series).
88 posted on 12/06/2002 7:21:10 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
always keep a sharp eye on ideologues

Conservatives ARE ideologues. The problem is that their ideology is inconsistent. About the same as your mental balance.

89 posted on 12/06/2002 7:21:14 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Then why not do it now?

I personally would prefer to engage in an all out assault on the "religion of peace" and the countries who embrace it after an unprovoked attack, after we have gotten our nose out of their business.

90 posted on 12/06/2002 7:21:38 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic; Sgt. Fury
Re: "Our Lady of Peace"

Another despicable gun law. Hopefully it won't pass the GOP controlled congress.

My litmus test for the GOP will be to see if they let the "assault weapon" ban and magazine restrictions sunset in 2004. IMO, these are two useless feel-good laws, that do nothing to reduce crime yet restrict 2A rights. If they do not I won't be a happy camper.
91 posted on 12/06/2002 7:27:34 AM PST by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Another despicable gun law. Hopefully it won't pass the GOP controlled congress.

Keep wishing.

My litmus test for the GOP will be to see if they let the "assault weapon" ban and magazine restrictions sunset in 2004.

Keep wishing. No way in hell they let it sunset. I guarantee it will be ammended as well. Expect more crime sprees with affected weapons as 2004 draws closer.

92 posted on 12/06/2002 7:30:34 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Sgt. Fury
I agree with everything you said. These bushbots are just as bad as those Clinton followers who were religious followers of the democrats no matter what corruption went on with that administration. Both sides are destroying our once free nation.
93 posted on 12/06/2002 7:31:06 AM PST by libertylady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Government defending proprety is one matter if it is within our national borders, even protecting our shipping is legit. but what about say the Boxer Rebellion? Were the Chinese nationals wrong to be upset by their country being carved up by Europeans? Do individuals not take risk when they buy land under another country's jurisdiction? or does being an American trump foreign sovernty? Does that mean the US can overthrow foreign goverments say to protect the holdings of say Chicita Banana? If so are we then no different than Britain of old sending troops and spending public tax dollars for the benift of corporations like the Hudsan Bay or East Indie? If we are the same then why not admit that we are an Empire?

"There is no excuse for not protecting it from militarily weak states" Would not this rule of thumb only lead to WMD proliferation? What country would want to be treated like Serbia or Iraq? N.Korea would then seem to be the model for weaker states. Then intervention means greater destabilization not more security. Unless of course the whole world is nuclear armed then I guess we all might not be so quick to strike. Then we could extrapolate the 2nd Amendment supporters claim globally that a well armed society is a polite society.

94 posted on 12/06/2002 7:31:13 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Then I'd probably start voting for the LP or other Third Party.
95 posted on 12/06/2002 7:40:59 AM PST by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Thank you for bringing that up. There is a difference between protecting your own freedom and our own borders and invading other countries with preemptive strikes for monetary control and world domination. Liberterians are all for protecting our country against invasion by others who would conspire to take away our freedoms. They are against the latter. That is not pacifist.
Where is it written in the constitution that we should go around the world imposing our views on other countries?
96 posted on 12/06/2002 7:42:38 AM PST by libertylady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: conservativemusician
Why do the neocons bring up drugs on an editorial that doesn't even discuss drugs. Please address those issues Harry Browne brought up in this article please.
97 posted on 12/06/2002 7:46:01 AM PST by libertylady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I hope you're wrong.
98 posted on 12/06/2002 7:47:06 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: libertylady
"There is a difference between protecting your own freedom and our own borders and invading other countries with preemptive strikes for monetary control and world domination. Liberterians are all for protecting our country against invasion by others who would conspire to take away our freedoms. They are against the latter. That is not pacifist."

I agree, but, to be fair, we should point out that many "l"ibertarians believe our border should be protected, while many "L"ibertarians believe in open borders. The official position of the LP is "free and open immigration." Personally, I think limiting immigration plays a big part in national security.

99 posted on 12/06/2002 7:56:10 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
You seem to have disappeared fairly early for someone who started the thread. Don't like the questions I asked? C'mon, who are ya really? VA is that you? LOL
100 posted on 12/06/2002 7:56:13 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-136 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