Libertarian Harry Browne: Bush Did Not Liberate Iraq

HarryBrowne.org ^ | Dec 15, 2003 | Harry Browne

[Cultural Jihad]

"Allow me to be irresponsible, and I'll allow you all to pay for the consequences of my irresponsibility." Such a swell deal!

[autoresponder]

Washington DC has been 100% gun banned for over 27 years and according to the 1999 Clinton-Reno-Freeg FBI/DOJ Uniform Crime Report had 301 handgun murders in a city of only 340,000 population.

Bagdad has many citizens running around with AK47s and many other firearms; we saw them celebrating by firing them into the air last weekend when the US 4th Infantry captured saddam Hussein.

Bagdad has only about 25 million people total population.

Even though Bagdad is actually still a dangeous war zone, there are far less killings of miltary and civilians every week in gagdad then in Washington DC.

The USA has had about 200 military killed in wartime combat since spring 2003 and about 100 killed in work related accidents.

OK Harry Browne, you claimed Iraq was completely disarmed.

Did you mean DC?

What is your "Exit Plan" for Washington DC?

Go at it!

"Liberate US!"

[MJY1288]

This guy Harry Browne needs psychological help, Here we have a Tyrannical Dictator that has been a menace to us and the entire middle east. A man who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and attacked his neighbors with the expressed intent to rule the middle east. A man that jailed the children of anyone who stepped out of line, ordered the rape of the wives of those he considered not loyal enough. A man who would throw his people off the roof of a 4 story building for praying too much. A man who was feared by every single person in Iraq, and this useless POS doesn't think the people of Iraq have been liberated!!!

Maybe Harry Browne thinks that once the statue fell in Baghdad, all of Saddam's thugs, (who were handsomely rewarded for their loyalty), would just lay down their arms and join in the celebration? I wonder if this mental midget H. Browne understands what it takes to remove a Dictator? Does he think the liberating force would not round up all king pins of the Regime and round up all the supporters of the Regime? Does he think that our forces would not have to round up Saddam's henchmen?

Message to Harry Browne:
The people of Iraq have been liberated from a Tyrant and when the security threat is gone and the Iraqi people are capable of governing themselves, we will leave if asked, and stay if they need us to provide security while they get back on their feet. Do you not listen to what this administration has been saying?

Harry Browne, your irrelevance gets clearer every time you put your thoughts into words. You can ignore the threat these terrorist present if you want! I thank God that we have a leader who can see past the front row, something you are not capable of doing.... You see! It's a vision thing!!!

[breakem]

I am pointing out that your comment is contradictory. If you need the government to instill responsibility or to discourage individual irresponsibility than it is not INDIVIDUAL. That's all.

You only have to say, gee you have a point there. But as a person who often cites the government and societal "responsibility" to protect people from sin and violating the commandments, I can understand how you'd make such an obvious mistake.

[breakem]

your 61 repeats the same mistake. If I allow it or permit it it is not "individual" on your part. Capiche?

[Cultural Jihad]

You yourself spoke too soon when you wrote on December 13th: "I don't buy any of this. I believe that both Osama and Saddam are long since dead, and the Bush administration knows it."

[kayak]

But from September 2002 to March 2003, George Bush said nothing about capturing Saddam Hussein.

Just what in the heck does he think regime change means?!!

Time after time in the period from September '02 to March '03 the President made reference to "disarming Saddam." Does Brown think that meant amputating his appendages? Sheesh!

[hchutch]

If I said what I really thought about this, I'd get a time out.

[Gunslingr3]

So the Libertarian position is that personal irresponsibility is some kind of right?

No, their position is that laws are instituted to protect individuals from other individuals, not from being dumb. You want a nannystate, go find one, there's no where else for people interested in liberty to go...

[ServesURight]

Yeah, the Republocrat welfare/warfare state is much better than liberty

I agree that the GOP's domestic agenda is nearly the same as the RATs, but voting for the Losertarians aren't going to get you anywhere except get more RATs elected.

[garbanzo]

Unfortunately too much of capital-L libertarianism is too much academic rambling. The idea of having to balance on good vs another or having to make hard choices is alien to many - much better to live in the world of simple abstractions where no sacrifices or difficult decisions have to be made.

[Deb]

Good point.

[cookcounty]

Thanks for reminding me not to waste my vote on a selfish and incredibly ignorant candidate like Brown, Not only is he toostupid to be President, he doesn't have enough brains to be a candidate.

[DesertSapper]

Just another reason I can't take libertarians seriously - if they were in charge in the 1940's we'd be speaking German now.

[Republican Wildcat]

Ah, Harry Browne. The same guy who came out when the flames on the WTC were still fresh with an article attacking the United States and saying we deserved what we got.

My, how valuable and credible his opinions are.

[Gunslingr3]

I agree that the GOP's domestic agenda is nearly the same as the RATs, but voting for the Losertarians aren't going to get you anywhere except get more RATs elected.

If there is no difference, what difference does it make?

[ForOurFuture]

I hate the Libertarians. They gave Jim Doyle here in WI the governorship on a silver platter.

A bunch of fringe fanatic losers. They'll never get more than .0000000000000000000000000000000001 of the vote.

I have to ask: If they never get more than .0000000000000000000000000000000001% of the vote, how did they give Jim Doyle the governorship of Wisconsin on a silver platter? If you're going to bash the LP, you can at least avoid contradicting yourself. Either A) they always garner a laughably small portion of the vote, or B) they sometimes soak up a portion just large enough to "give" elections to the Democrats. Pick one and stick with it.

As for myself, which to fully support, if either, is the perfect quandary, and I've bounced back and forth countless times. For all their rhetoric, the GOP by and large does squat to advance liberty and restore the Constitution, and often retards both, but the LP never gets the oppurtunity. What's a conscientious socialist-hating, liberty-loving Constitutionalist to do?

I have yet to decide.

[Starve The Beast]

Darn it, this guy makes us Libertarians look crazier and crazier (and we don't need any help). Our ideas are sound, but our nut-cases seem always to define us. I feel a little like a quiet Muslim, trying to make my humble way for myself and my family, being defined by Osama bin Ladin.

If Browne really cared about the Libertarian Party, he'd join the Greens. He'd fit right in.

[Starve The Beast]

Darn it, this guy makes us Libertarians look crazier and crazier (and we don't need any help). Our ideas are sound, but our nut-cases seem always to define us. I feel a little like a quiet Muslim, trying to make my humble way for myself and my family, being defined by Osama bin Ladin.

If Browne really cared about the Libertarian Party, he'd join the Greens. He'd fit right in.

[Cultural Jihad]

If there is no difference, what difference does it make?

By golly, you're right! Both parties are opposed to the burning down of public schools. Both parties are opposed to open immigration. Both parties are opposed to bazooka-toting crank-heads walking downtown with impunity.