Posted on 09/12/2001 12:31:51 AM PDT by ouroboros
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
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.
A lot of retaliation is in order. Anything less would be Munich.
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.
Once that is done, however, a massive re-assessment of our Interventionist foreign policy is in order. "Never Again" is a battle cry for re-evaluating our own policies, not just Revenge (though revenge must necessarily be taken).
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.
I'm sickened by both acts. You should be, too.
Tuor
I don't like flame wars, and pissed off is the only thing I can be when I read your posts.
All I will do is repeat what I said earlier.
I thank GOD France was not Libertarian back in 1776.
C'ya on the drug threads. BYE
I think that if you re-read the thread, you'll see that more than a few of us would like America to exit the "World's Policeman" role -- after these particular murderers have been liquidated, that is.
Re-read the thread. Not all of us are pleased with the "US military in EVERY possible country" foreign policy our leadership seems to have adopted.
By the way, from what country are you posting? No desire to attack your citizenship, just curious about your point of view from "wherever you are".
"The collapse of U.S. centers of power is a collapse of the U.S. policy, which deviates from human values and stands by world Zionism at all international forums to continue to slaughter the Palestinian Arab people and implement U.S. plans to dominate the world under the cover of what is called the new [world] order. These are the fruits of the new U.S. order." --Iraqi state television
Sound familiar?
Nice bumper sticker slogan.
Seriously...who's going to "teach it?"
France recognized the government of a new Nation (the USA) which was at war with a mortal enemy (the UK) of the French Crown, and concluded a treaty of mutual support with Her as a bulwark against the hated British enemy.
In short, France pursued a policy of Rational Self-Interest.
Which is exactly what Libertarians and Paleo-Conservatives advocate.
Patriots are those who value the blood of their fellow-citizens highly enough to avenge it when they are killed -- as do we; and Patriots also value the blood of their fellow-citizens highly enough not to endanger them by entangling ourselves in wars where we have no clear and essential National Interest -- unlike you.
It's going to be difficult. They're in the midst of a civil war. They're busy shooting at each other right now. Knowing our government, we'll actually rationalize that killing the side that actually had nothing to do with the terrorist acts might help "maintain stability" in the region or other such nonsense.
In fact I know that this will be presented as an option by some CIA analyst (psychopath) and even discussed at length as possibly viable. After all, they could tell us anything and we'd believe them. Osama bind Laden is responsible for virtually every heinous crime around the globe.
I don't like the US "being the world's policeman." That being said, nature hates a vacuum. If the US chooses to quit the job, someone else WILL do it.
So...who would YOU like instead?
We're probably going to hit a lot of people who were not involved, or at least not directly responsible. It's inevitable.
Nonetheless, you punish murderers with harsh justice system for two reasons:
1.) Because they are murderers; but also...
2.) To set an example to would-be criminals.
And you do this, even though you know that sometimes -- humans and human organizational systems being imperfect -- you're going to execute judgment on the innocent.
And war is messier by far than criminal justice. But - to take an example - even though the average Romanian worker was largely a hostage to Hitler's ambitions, once we were in that war, the oilfields of Ploesti still had to be bombed.
That said, Bin Laden is - like Saddam himself - largely a creature of US Interventionist "blowback".
Will we learn? I don't lay good odds on it.
Who can afford to? Imperialism has bankrupted every nation of power-mad morons who have ever tried it. "Great" Britain is a shell of its former self. Rome collapsed in on itself and went broke. Alexander's empire was ravaged by disease. The Mongols couldn't keep it together. The Soviet Union: Collapsed. It will bankrupt us too. It's too much to control. It can't be done.
When will we ever learn?
To all:
I'm not saying the U.S. should not use strong action.
We have to continue the agressive game we started.
But, I do think it worth examining how we got into this mess we are in.
Like Harry, or don't like Harry -- he has some valuable information for us.
I see closed minds represented in many of the responses here.
I think you are most likely right. Like it or not that's the law of the jungle, it's eat or be eaten. We might not be wonderful, but we're the best of anyone else who might want the job.
The Swiss were processing the gold from Jewish teeth and other assets.
The historical fact is that the Swiss had prepared a three-part defence strategy: 1)Fight the invaders at the border forts until they fell. They were prepared to fight to the last at these forts. 2) Retreat, fighting, across the Jura Plateau, while some units broke up and harassed the stretching German lines. 3) Hold out in the "Reduit National" or "Festung Switzerland" in the high Alps, and mount forays to attack the Germans from there. To this end they had stockpiled food and ammunition enough to fight the Nazis for many years. Of course, none of these facts fit your prejudices. The Swiss have proven inconvenient to lots of foolish prejudices, including the one that an armed citizenry is a violent one. But that is another topic.
The Nazis were afraid of the Swiss? Yeah right. LOL A few bombing raids would've wiped the Swiss out in those mountains in a hurry.
The Germans knew they had someone to process their booty through, of course they weren't going to attack the Swiss.
Peace and Liberty
Peace later, not now.
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.