Skip to comments.HARRY BROWNE: "When will we learn?"
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?
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.
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.
You may enjoy your police state, but I don't. Why don't you move somewhere where their constitution allows such nonsense. You won't be missed, that I assure you. We have plenty of idiots to go around already.
Ever since the end of the Second World War, the tendancy of American public opinion has been more or less conservative. But there exists some danger that conservatives themselves might slip into a narrow ideology or quasi-ideology--even though, as H. Stuart Hughes wrote some forty years ago, "Conservatism is negation of ideology."
* * * *
Rejecting religion and metaphysics,...original ideologues believed that they could discover a system of natural laws--which system, if conformed to , could become the foundation of universal harmony and contentment. Doctrines of self-interest, economic productivity, and personal liberty were bound up with these notions. Late-born children ot the dying Enlightenment, the Ideologues assume that systemized knowledge derived from sensation could perfect society through ethical and educational methods and by well organized political direction.
* * * *
Although it has been the most powerful of ideologies, Marxism--very recently diminshed in strength--has competitors: various forms of nationalism, negritude, feminism, fascism (a quasi-ideology never fully fleshed out in Italy), naziism (an ideology in embryo, Hannah Arendt wrote), syndicalism, anarchism, social democaracy, and Lord knows what all, Doubtless yet more forms of ideology will be concocted during the twenty-first century.
Kenneth Minogue, in his recent book Alien Powers: the Pure Theory of Ideology, uses the word "to denote any doctrine which presents the hidden and saving truth about the world in the form of social analysis. It is a feature of all such doctrines to incorporate a general theory of the mistakes of everybody else." That "hidden and saving truth" is a fraud--a complex of contrived falsifying "myths", disguised as history, about the society we have inherited.
* * * *
...this word ideology, since the Second World War , ususally has signified a dogmatic political theory which is an endevor to substitute secular goals and doctrines for religious goals and doctrines; and which promises to overthrow present dominations so the oppressed may be liberated. [Listen fellow members of the VRWC he's speaking to us as well as the Left] Ideology's promises are what Talmon calls "political messianism." The ideologue promises salvation in this world, hotly declaring that there exists no other realm of being, Eric Voegelin, Gerhart Niemeyer, and other writers have emphasized that ideologues "immanentize the symbols of transcendence"--that is, corrupt the vision of salvation through grace in death into false promises of complete happiness in this mundane realm. Ideology, in short is a political formula that promises mankind an earthly paradise; but in cruel fact what ideology has created is a series of terrestrial hells.
If you followed the link, or went to his site, here you know it was published yesterday. He is truely an ideologue, limited by his rhetoric.
Like anything written by a politician, there is some truth in it. But I'd have to say that it doesn't predominate or shine through and shows his limitations and those of his party.
Kuwait was, in 1990-1991, not our "Ally" either.
An "Ally" is a nation-state with whom you have concluded a treaty of Military Alliance.
No such commitment to the autocracy of Kuwait existed in 1990. Nor should there have been -- we do not now, and did not then, have any "need" for Kuwait; nor do we have any compelling National Interest in seeing Kuwait governed by one undemocratic dictatorship, rather than another.
Patriots who value the blood of their fellow citizens, do not endanger them by entangling ourselves in useless Wars where we have no compelling National Interest. Those who stupidly risk the lives of their fellow-citizens by creating hostilities with people whom we simply do not need as enemies, are nearly traitors.
You are on the wrong side of the fence. 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.
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.
Thanks Harry for using this opporunity to get face time. Now, shut up!
Thank God they are so few in numbers in reality and can only mass here on our forum.
I was actually thinking somewhat anatomically rearward (as in chair contact point when sitting). I said nothing to suggest the metaphor your specified. Sorry you jumped to the wrong assumption.
Anger at the messenger will not change the message.
If you want to truly end this kind of thing for all time, then start convincing your republican interventionist friends to reign in their egos, and start to show respect for the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
What we've been trying to tell you, and still are, is that no amount of emotion is a basis for foriegn policy. Not before the attack, and not after.
In Baghdad, Iraqi state television hailed the attacks as "a natural reaction to American rulers hegemony, deception and foolishness."
In a broadcast monitored by the BBC the television station said: "The American cowboy is reaping the fruits of his crimes against humanity."
Sheikh Yassin, leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas, said: "No doubt this is a result of injustice the U.S practices against the weak in the world."
From Gaza, Islamic Jihad official Nafez Azzam said: "What happened in the United States today is a consequence of American policies in this region."
Harry Browne's words are echoed by Saddam Hussein, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.
Exactly WHAT refutation do you have to anything Uriel, Demidog...or even I have said?
How can you just post lies?
None of us are talking weakness? We're probably more pro-war than your boy Bush is. I still expect a weasel war, and not a full one. They'll attempt 'to bring the terrorists to justice'... look at Powell's words.
I want them hurt so bad that their great grandchildren know better than to even THINK about attacking us again...... And the only way to do that is an overwhelming counter attack. Something that will make Arabs hundreds of miles away who only read about it piss themselves...
It is not delusional to show you that the REASON Arabs hate is not what Bush says it is. That we stand for freedom.
We do not stand for freedom when we blockade Iraq and cause the starvation of innocents. We do not stand for freedom when we carpet bomb Serbia or attack innocent aspirin factories. We do not stand for freedom when we use NATO to remake the map of Europe to the liking of the elite masters...
The reason Arabs hate us, is because they see us as sticking our nose, our economic and military might and our political muscle in their affairs and the affairs of others all over the world.
Just what CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATION do you have for troops being stationed in 100 nations around the world? That's almost half the planet !
The time for this has ended. Knock off the Imperialism, or we'll end up EXACTLY LIKE ROME. Scattered to the winds.
We're trying to teach you the lesson now. But easy way or hard way, you will eventually learn it. Reality is a stern instructor.
However the fact remains that this happened, so we stand together as Americans against our enemies. I was glad to hear Bush saying that we would not give up any freedom over this, I hope that turns out to be the case.
What about it?
Remember, we're talking about Browne suggesting that the USA should "prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America." Honestly...do you see no difference between a foreign policy decision and actual death-dealing acts of military intervention, like in Serbia? It's laughable that you would consider an embargo an act of war. How many people did the oil embargo kill?
If we had every right to fight Saddam lest he control the free flow of oil,why were the Japanese not justified in their concerns?
The Japanese struck at the USA when it would not cooperate with their attempt to make Japan the power of Far East Asia and the Pacific (including Australia and New Zealand). Are you suggesting that it was the United States' obligation to sell fuel to the Japanese? Should Roosevelt have endorsed the Japanese version of "manifest destiny?" Would that have fit Browne's definition of "minding our own business?"
Sorry, it doesn't parallel. With Japan, the USA was controlling what it would do with its OWN oil. Saddam Hussein, fresh off a victory over the Iranians, invaded and possessed a sovereign nation for the sole purpose of increasing his influence as an oil broker. Our oil was ours. Saddam's oil was the Kuwaitis'.
The way the Japanese thought of it, they were going to build the third world power after Hitler and Mussolini got through with the UK, the USSR, and Africa. They would leave the USA in the middle between the Nazi-Fascists and themselves.
Now, you are free to suggest that had Hirohito and Hitler succeeded, with the US watching the action from the coasts, they would have been fat and happy with their own empires, and they would be content to watch the USA "mind its own business." I submit that there is no way you could possibly know for sure -- and that goes for all the Go-Pat-Gorillas too.
Yeah, the Marxist professors have done a fine job of training our future leaders of how evil our society is. They and their ideological cousins of the L.P. have no apparent qualms about decrying our "imperialism." I'll mention that to our taskmasters in Tokyo who are overseeing the slave plantations on Mt. Fuji, or the imperial troops who are guarding the slave labor camps in Berlin. Sheesh.
Sorry. The other day, someone told me to "think with my big head, not the little one," so I may have been a little sensitive.
Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
Wonder how much pilot training and supplies $43,000,000 bought?
But please do carry on with your policies of interventionism...
The spokesman for the ARI or Harry Browne?
You know that alas they are in conflict today....pity. Placing our country's future in the hands of you libertarian/contrarian arsewipes at this juncture is akin to believing in the tooth fairy. I have observed and argued with your kind on WOD, Dubya, prayer in schools and many other subjects from my traditional hard core conservative perspective and have found your collective fondness for the individual(devoid of God) determination of morality and your emphasis on personal desires or liberties as you call them at the expense of all others to be callow and foolish. I wish you would all go crawl back into the hole from whence you came and we'll tell you when it's safe to come back up so you can all start your self-obsessed drum beating all over again.
Libertarianism =Anarchy and Spiritual Vapidness
And stop getting into the personal attacks. Because you aren't even CLOSE to the founders.
Exactly WHAT refutation do you have to anything Uriel, Demidog...or even I have said?
You're 0 for 2. Want to try again?
So, is GW's administration as stoooooopid on Afghanistan as Al Gore's team was on Russia (re the loan rip offs)?
Or was the $43M payment for, as of last week, an as-yet-to-be-delivered service?
It's starting to look a lot like Arkansas ....
Since when did anyone care what goes on in these countries? Terrorists are about an audience. They go for the biggest target out there.
And since when were any of those countries big enough to worry or help anyone but themselves?
Presuming that you would refer to me of that number because I believe Harry Browne is speaking from the comfort of a dream world he knows will never happen, my eyes don't glaze over at the amount of text. I read the text, and after processing it, my eyes roll in disbelief.
Whenza last time one of the jackboot crowd picked up a book?
I picked up a book just hours ago.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. The Bible doesn't count with you folks.
Even you can't be this naive. Terrorism is a military tactic. We don't have to use it, because we have fighter bombers, ICBMs and nuclear missiles.
Do you think Iraq or Bin Laid-To-Rest would have bothered with hijackings if they had access to ICBMs?
These people are striking at us the best way they know how. To the limits of the capabilities. They aren't choosing these tactics because they want a crowd.
If they could totally destroy Israel, don't you think they would?
There's a great French film "Mon Oncle d'Amerique", and it explores several folks' lives and their reactions to stress in them, all the while there is a narrative and nature shots about how critters deal with stress ... there are those who fight whatever is causing them stress ... straight-out; there are those who fight themselves; and then there are those who fight whoever is around them during stressful times.
You're in the group that likes to fight whoever is around them - friend, fellow countryman, or foe - it doesn't matter for you.
"Our kind" happens to grant themselves the freedom to think and to explore. "Your kind" happens to grant themselves the freedom to buy into the party line, and despise all who do not.
Funny ... "your kind" appears to have a great deal in common with the Taliban and Osama.
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 his vicinity?
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.
Best one yet ...
When can we expect to hear from your parents? Bring a translator for your mother, I don't speak skank.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Of Course, you are actually making my argument from another thread, where I asserted that we should Nuke these people, because if they were capable if a nuclear retaliation they would have already used it.
But that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The question I addressed was, why were countries like Switz., Zurich, ect, not attacked.
In a time of war, which is what we are in, this is traitorous , sedition. If he has 3 working brain cells, he'd know better than to write this garbage. If this is what he stands for, then all who voted for him, should feel shame for having voted for him.
We killed " innocents " during both world wars. That happens during wars. We've killed " innocents " during necessary conflicts. We were NOT at war with a country/ countries now. We were invaded , and our innocents WERE murdered , because of a group of religious fanatics . There's a HUGE difference, that old Harry is far too blinded , by his UTOPIAN fog, to see.
What has just happened in NYC is a war crime. Those who are responsible are the persons who planned, supported, and carried out the operation. Justice requires that they be dealt with. This is not the time to fuss about the details of our foregoing foreign policy.
It is so important to the Libertarians to prove that they are right, and have always been right, that they studiously ignore Moslem violence throughout the world. Fine, then. Let us concede that the murder of over 5,000 people two days ago was justified by U.S. support of Israel. What is the justification for the continuing slaughter and enslavement of Christians and animists in the Sudan? What is the justification for the torture and murder of missionaries in the Philippines? I bet those dastardly Sudanese were shipping arms to Israel. And those Zionist Filipinos were desecrating Moslem holy sites.
While American foreign policy may be unduly meddlsome, the point is that Islamic Fundamentalism is violently aggressive, and its practioners do not need a real reason to go after you if you are an infidel. Nor have they ever been limited by the moral qualms of attacking only combatant targets. Is is their MO to go after "soft targets." So we could sit around and blame ourselves for this, or we could take a look at the history of Islamic brutality, expansion, and agression over more than a millenium. Given the way militant Islam works, they were bound to come for us sooner or later.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.