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.
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.
I read the link -- and it had nothing to do with 1990 (did you read the link?). Kuwait's undemocratic, dictatorial autocracy may be thanking us now for keeping them in power all these years (which is to be expected)... but that is entirely beside the point. In 1990, Kuwait was entirely irrelevant to American National Interest. It really doesn't matter which undemocratic dictator (the Kuwaiti autocracy or the Iraqi autocracy) sells us Kuwaiti oil; We had no compelling National Interest in Kuwait before it was introduced into the World community (like Iraq, it is a relatively recent post-colonial nation-state), and we have no compelling National Interest in them now. Funny how this nation prospered for 185 years before the nation-state of "Kuwait" was ever invented.
Your principles rely upon a perfect world. Mine are on REALITY. Oil is not being drilled here, as it should be.... Israel, and Iraq are both places we should be. Saddam is an international thread, and should be taken out of power. I agree, with you that we should not just keep bombing them. We need to KILL Saddam. That is the only way we, as Americans can be safe.
Or, we could've just ignored him in the first place. What do you suppose he intended to do with all that Kuwaiti oil? Drink it?
And as to your complaint that "Oil is not being drilled here"... gee, wonder why? Fact is, were it not for US military interventionism in the region, Middle Eastern oil would likely form a much smaller "supply pool" for US oil demand than it does now, as US importers have little desire to rely on suppliers which, without US protection, could disappear at a moments notice. Of course, without this "supply pool", demand would have to be filled here at home, instead. This would set the interests of the American working class (who want cheap gasoline) against the environmentalists, a conservative political dream scenario.
Instead, the interests of the American working class have been satisfied by a militarily-enforced reliance on foreign Oil, cheered on by the unthinking Interventionist war-mongers -- who never consider how they are endangering the blood of American citizens by making unnecessary enemies in every "neighborhood" in the world. Why? 'Cause deep down you care a lot more about cheap foreign oil than the blood of your fellow citizens. That's a fact, jack.
I will agree that there is several places we are that we should not be.
Wow, just brilliant. The heir to Washington you are indeed, Tex.
And stop getting into the personal attacks. Because you aren't even CLOSE to the founders.
Cry me a river, little man. I'm a heck of a lot closer to the Founder's viewpoints -- religiously, philsophically, and politically -- than you have ever been; and you well know it, too. And, unless you start thinking for the first time in your life, than you will ever be, either.
"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**." 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.
As I've indicated above, yes it is in the interests of US domestic oil producers to have Middle Eastern oil carry an appropriately high "risk premium" reflecting the natural instability of the region, without the US government spending billions (even tens of billions of dollars) a year to "hide" that Risk-Premium behind the aegis of military adventurism.
So ultimately, yes, I am an advocate of domestic US oil development rather than dependence on foreign oil. And if US oil consumers did not expect the US military to "maintain" the supply of cheap oil from the middle east, they would prefer dependable domestic producers to the (in that scenario) much more risky foreign sources.
The expenditure of billions of dollars a year in US military interventionism hides the true cost, and true risks, of foreign oil, thus diverting that demand from domestic producers. But this military adventurism does have a hidden cost -- it provides lots and lots of anti-American video footage for radicals like Bin Laden to enrage the Arab man on the street who otherwise would care very little about a peaceful Republic some 6,000 miles away.
All that said, Saudi Arabia alone contains considerably more proven Oil reserves than Iraq and Kuwait combined. If (in 1990) you are determined that we must be dependent on foreign oil, conclude a treaty of Defense with Saudi Arabia with an agreement to station 11 nuclear delivery vehicles (under US military control & supervision) on Saudi soil -- 10 tactical launch warheads to eliminate any Iraqi divisions that cross the Iraq/Saudi frontier, and 1 strategic launch warhead targeted on Baghdad. Inform Baghdad of the arrangement, and sit back. Oh, and Saudi Arabia can pay us, say, $1 billion dollars a year, per warhead, by way of a thank-you; and also agree to support US diplomacy in every international forum, lest we withdraw our benevolent protection.
I am against military interventionism on principle, but if you insist upon it, let's lay down three principles:
1.) Make no more enemies than we have to;
2.) Endanger no American blood when Massive Deterrence will do the job instead; and
3.) At least make a profit on the deal.
Naw, I with my two sons was too busy giving blood. We know you were busy spouting your sick screed. I guess we both had things to do yesterday that was important to us.
What do you suppose he intended to do with all that Kuwaiti oil? Drink it?
Um I though you had a brain Uriel. Actually I didn't your poor interpretation of the Bible in the past had already pointed that out. What is better Uriel, a free market with competition or a Monopoly? Do you really think that we would not have suffered had Saddam taken control of all oil in the Middle east? And you are a fool if you don't think that was his intention.
As for your founders statement; it is obvious that you are severely demented and need to seek psychological help.
Of course you are right Uriel, in your own little twisted world. Let me know when REALITY becomes a concept to you.
Wow. That is such a naive question, I don't know how to respond. Other than to point out that pretty much ALL of our military and intelligence people figured Saddam would eventually move on to Saudi Arabia and possibly others if left to his own devices. I'm no geo-political expert, but my own layman's observation of Saddam's m.o. tells me that would be extremely hurtful to US interests.
The world runs on oil; our economy runs on oil; countless jobs depend on reasonable oil prices; our entire standard of living relys on a stable oil environment; oil is power. So we should have let Saddam eventually take over a significant portion of the world's oil reserves and deal with whatever demands he would make...including outrageous prices or no shipments at all? Boy, I'm glad you libertarians are not in authority - scary.
Try reading. Hamilton speaks directly in favor of my position, you illiterate twit. (That's fair turnaround for your "hollow bluster" comment, so don't whine).
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.
No. It is the realistic observation that Clinton's policy of "wag-the-dog" bombings of Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan would infuriate people in the region. That they would have repercussions.
That is exactly the kind of "foreign policy" we should avoid.
You think that Bill Clinton's legacy of interventionist warmongering is something to preserve?? Something to emulate?? It is not. It is something to withdraw from. My disapproval of Bush, Sr's actions is only a matter of consistency; in terms of the total number of international military "police actions" and empire-building operations, Clinton was the worse offender.
These Clintonian empire-building, wag-the-dog warfighting "foreign policies" do have the consequence of making enemies we do not need.
Once we have liquidated the State and quasi-State elements responsible for this atrocity, we will have an opportunity to retrench and withdraw from the kind of mindless military adventurism which has characterized the post-Cold-War era, largely courtesy of Bill Clinton. We should do so.
Yeah! There oughta be a law against people saying unpopular things. Lets do away with the 1st amendment, we have the excuse now, an attack. Hell, throw out the whole bill of rights while we have the chance.
/sarcasm>
What a way to throw an olive branch back in my face. Talk like a normal person for once, would you?
If I cut out my crap, and you cut out yours, we might be able to talk man - to - man.
Do you understand? Let us make peace with one another.
Nope. Oil prices would've spiked, and absent a policy of military interventionism, we'd have to drill Alaska instead.
The Unions are already at odds with the enviro-nuts today over Alaskan oil. How much stronger do you suppose working class demand for oil would have been, in 1990, without a US policy of empire-building promoting dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East?
The world runs on oil; our economy runs on oil; countless jobs depend on reasonable oil prices; our entire standard of living relys on a stable oil environment; oil is power.
Well, hum-golly, I never thought of that (/sarcasm).
All the more reason to drill Alaska. Last I checked, Alaskan's weren't in the habit of throwing a dirty little regional war every few years.
Ultimately, you folks are perfectly willing to sacrifice your neighbor's blood for cheap Middle Eastern oil -- oil which could be drilled at home in the US instead -- and claim this callous indifference to your neighbor's lives to be "patriotism".
That's exactly what I've been saying of you.
And, guess what -- September 11, 2001, the Interventionists empire-building policies paid their dividends.
Rather than blaming libertarians (who are perfectly willing to exact vengeance now that the Interventionists have yet again enraged an enemy half-way around the globe and gotten their fellow-citizens killed as a result), you may as well acknowledge the facts -- the Founders argued against a policy of US military adventurism. They had their reasons. And you still don't understand why they thought the way they did.
But some of us do. To callously endanger your fellow-citizens over your own desire to manage the world's affairs, is treasonous in the bloody results it obtains.
Oh, and Tex...
Um I though you had a brain Uriel. Actually I didn't your poor interpretation of the Bible in the past had already pointed that out.
Your little potshot is just silly. Since you want to make a point of this, let's be honest: We are not on the same mental playing field, and you know it. There is probably not a single field of intellectual endeavor in which you are not completely outclassed. You know it as well as I do. Don't even pretend that you can kid yourself on this.
That isn't a boast; just an observation of fact.
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.