Posted on 09/14/2001 1:30:09 AM PDT by ouroboros
Friday, September 14, 2001
By Harry Browne
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
My article last Tuesday "When Will We Learn?" provoked more controversy than anything I've ever written. In case there was any misunderstanding, here is what I believe:
The reactions I've received have been roughly 50-50 regarding my position. Here are some of the objections people have made against my position.
Timing
"This was a bad time for you to say, 'I told you so' in such a poor fashion."
I'm not saying, "I told you so." I'm trying to stop future madness – against Americans and against foreigners. Should I wait until after our military invades Afghanistan before speaking out?
"Now, of all times, is the time when we must support one another for the best."
That doesn't mean supporting the ill-conceived policies that led to this event.
"It is time for our people to pull together against these sick terrorists. We could use your help too."
To do what? Encourage our politicians to continue doing the very things that led to this? You're demonstrating why I had to write the article. If we stand behind our leaders now, letting them speak for us "as one voice," nothing will change. We will continue to see more acts by our government that will lead to more terrorist attacks on the U.S.
"Don't tell me to 'stop the hysteria.' This event merits hysteria, anger, sadness, and fear. I will be hysterical because it is the only thing I can do to show my countrymen that I mourn them."
Hysteria creates lynch mobs and more killing of innocent people. Grief, anger, and resentment are all natural reactions to what happened. But letting your emotions make bad decisions is not a productive reaction.
"What's done is done and now we're in the middle of this terrible mess. Maybe you're right, maybe we should not be surprised that something was bound to happen. But, now what? We don't need people criticizing our past mistakes at this moment. Save that for later. Right now we need immediate action."
If we don't understand the past mistakes, the "immediate action" taken will simply repeat those mistakes. Is that what you want?
My Motives
"You have lost my support by your political posturing in a time of crisis."
Political posturing? Do you really think I expected to receive adulation for writing an article that goes so sharply against current public opinion?
"It sickens me that you would use this tragedy this way."
In what way? To try to stop it from happening again? To try to stop our politicians from running off and bombing more innocent people? As a normally public voice, should I sit quietly by and not point out that our politicians are continually putting innocent Americans in harm's way by terrorizing innocent foreigners?
I understand your outrage and emotional reaction, but we must hold our own politicians accountable for the anger they are causing around the world with their careless, dangerous, show-off tactics.
"Please leave the United States. You do not deserve to remain here with this type of un-American diatribe which only serves to support the voices of moderation."
I thought this supposed to be a free country in which everyone was allowed to speak his mind. I guess I misunderstood. I didn't realize it was a crime to try to stop a lynching.
The Libertarian Party
"Using this event as a means to bolster the Libertarian party is despicable and it is disgusting."
It appears that standing up for what one believes isn't a way to bolster the popularity of the Libertarian Party. But that's what Libertarians often do – especially when no one else will.
"You have forever ended any chance of my supporting the Libertarian party, unless you resign from any and all leadership positions immediately."
You'll be pleased to know I don't hold any leadership position in the Libertarian Party. I am a private citizen who grieves for what the politicians have done to my country and to the innocents who die in America and abroad. Many Libertarians disagree with my position, so you shouldn't judge the Libertarian Party by me.
Retaliation
"We must deter the next attack with the fiery sword of vengeance, not some limp, liberal, why-can't-we-be-let-alone weak response."
We have done that already – bombing Libya, invading Panama, bombing a perfume factory in the Sudan, bombing Afghanistan. Did those "fiery sword(s) of vengeance" deter the next attack?
"Bomb Kabul into oblivion."
As I recall, Kabul is the capital of Afghanistan, which is run by the same "Freedom Fighters" our own government gave so much money and military hardware to in the 1980s. Before we run off bombing innocent people (or is every Afghani guilty of the World Trade Center bombing?), shouldn't we question the American foreign policy that put those people in power in Afghanistan? Or is it bad timing to bring that up now?
"Once you know the face of your enemy destroy him completely and you will never need fight him again. America is at war. To win a war it must be fought in totality."
A war against whom? Against people like the one million Iraqis who have died of starvation or disease because of the American blockade? Against people like the innocents who died in the bombings of the Sudan and Afghanistan?
Everytime our leaders say, "We must make sure this will never happen again," they do something to assure that it will happen again. I wrote my article in the vain hope it might help people to think twice before demanding the wrong action.
"Do you think these terrorists can really be reasoned with?"
I didn't say they could. I said we shouldn't give them legitimate reasons to direct their misguided zeal at the U.S.
"Don't you think a soft response would just encourage more terrorism?"
I hope the people who were involved are found, tried, and punished. I don't consider that a soft response. But I don't want any more innocent people hurt – Americans or foreigners.
"This is not the time to run and bury our heads in the sand. Someone has to stand up to bullies wherever they are! Like the Nazis; the only good Religious Fundamentalist is one that is in heaven! Not only is it a time for the U.S. to take action but to OCCUPY ALL ARAB LANDS, since their Religious leaders 'preach' the Jihad."
Did I mention that there was a lot of hysteria and a lynch-mob sentiment right now?
"You totally lost your credibility with me when you suggest that any military response will basically serve no purpose."
The U.S. went to Vietnam to stop the Communist dominos from falling, and the entire region fell to the communists. The U.S. invaded Panama, supposedly to end drug-dealing there, and today Panama is more overrun with the drug trade than ever. After years of arming Saddam Hussein, the U.S. invaded Iraq to get rid of him, but he is still held up as a terrible threat to the world. The U.S. bombed Libya to teach terrorists a lesson; so the terrorists hijacked the Pan American plane over Scotland.
Perhaps you could give me an example of where U.S. military response in the past several decades has achieved any purpose.
Obviously, the individuals involved in the attacks should be found, prosecuted, and punished. But going to war against another country or some vague conspiracy will solve no more than the examples I just gave.
"At this time, past wrongful deeds committed by Americans should not play a role in our reaction to this horrible event. We have to retaliate once we confirm who is responsible. Otherwise, even more horrific events are sure to occur in the future."
We have retaliated in the past, and still horrific events followed. What I'm hoping for is a different kind of reaction this time – one that will actually change American policy so that we never again suffer what happened this week.
Corrections & Caution
"I would like to point out that the airliner destroyed over Scotland was a PanAm plane, not TWA."
You are right. In my haste to get the article finished, I was careless in relying on my imperfect memory and not looking it up.
"I put my Harry Browne for President stickers back up in my dorm room yesterday."
Please, take them down before you get lynched.
More to come.
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.
The legitimate greviences of the middle east are few and far between. None of them justify terrorism, because terrorism just delays resolution of the Palestinian situation.
Holy War is one of the singularly screwball ideas of history. Christians tried it a thousand years ago, had a few initial successes, and eventually got severly thumped. Christians don't try to spread their beliefs by violent force anymore. It's a matter of growing up as a culture.
We do not need to level any countries. But we need to severly thump those who support holy war.
He is standing by what he wrote. And exactly what is 'vile' about it. The part about punishing the terrorists who attacked us? The part about not killing innocent people? Maybe the part about how this country's constant intrevention into the affairs of other nations contributed to us becoming targets?
One good thing that could come out of this mess is that, after the terrorists and their supporters die a horrible death, we hold the gov't responsible for failing to defend us (one of the few constitutionally-authorized responsibilities of the fed gov't) and we start ending our meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Think about it, a U.S. gov't that has the power to stick its nose into the business of any country on earth is ALWAYS going to have the power to stick its nose into YOUR business, and mine.
Amen!
"Those who fail to learn from history, will repeat it."
Everyone with a functional brain knows that ignoring the criminals WILL NOT make them go away. Only gutless cowards DO NOTHING.
Would that apply to us in the case of the decimated aspirin factory? the cluster bombing of innocent civilians in Serbia? Iraq?
I guess when we use our military might to control political events in other nations (or distract attention from the corruption of our own government), it is a righteous "new world order" and and every man woman and child should be damn grateful we are stuffing it to them. When a few are less than grateful, and retaliate, they are all terrorists and must be wiped from the face earth.
This tragedy and attack took place in this country. This did not take place in some foreign land. Am I to believe that the first concern should be for revenge and to hell with any security or safety concerns of the remainder of our people here in the United States? Does anybody think that this group that pulled these attacks are the only terrorists that made it into this country?
We better take care of our own and round up the remaining terrorists in our own country as part of the revenge mentality. There is no sweeter revenge than to catch a group that are plannubg death and destruction before they have the opportunity to do so. The public should decide what can be done in the area of internal security and act accordingly.
Do thousands of illegal aliens pouring across our borders seem like national security? Do thousands of illegal aliens of every nationality within this country with no documentation of any kind sound like a good idea? Does training of pilots of every nationality on our own air bases soundx like good national security? Does bringing China over to explain our traffic control system so they can go back to every terrorist nation and brief them on our control system indicate good security? While we have thousands of troops all over the world, does leaving our power stations, dams, water treatment plants, public transportation systems, and other infastructure unguarded seem to be a reasonable thing to be doing? Does disarming the public which has been the cornerstone of a political faction in the Congress sound like a good idea in the wake of a terrorist war against the United States?
We had a good security system in place during WW II because it was a necessity. There were only a handful of sabotuers that made it through our defenses. There is no reason we can't have the same at this time. We are starting behind the eight ball because we have been so lax and thousands of potential enemy are here but they can be rounded up with the cooperation of local citizens. Let's get on the ball and get some security in this country and the terrorist revenge will take care of itself.
If we can disable Bin Laden's organization in this country, we can get him eventually. If we continue to let him operate through cells in this country, we are just playing with his rules and he will strike again. Get security conscious!
Dittoes and bump
To the best of my knowledge, Serbia neither attacked us nor gave aid and comfort to anyone who attacked us. They were in the middle of a civil war -- perhaps behaving badly, but within their own boarders.
If the aspirin factory had been what we called it, yes, I'd support bombing it.
Other countries have legitimate gripes against us. Fine. Take it to court.
Germany had legitimate grievances in 1930, us I doubt that Hitler could have been reasoned with. Just because someone has legitimate gripes doesn't make them sane and reasonable.
In the meantime, the Republicans and Democrats will use this week's events simply to justify ever more bloated budgets while silencing any talk of significant tax cuts. Why Americans continue to reward the Demo-Republican alliance for doing such a lousy job at everything they touch is beyond my comprehension.
He said the same things in his 1992 campaign. He was the first, the leading, and for the most part, the ONLY significant political figure that has called for a change in our military to be defensive, not aggressive. He has long advocated the majority of our military budget should be spent defending our borders, building a missle defense system, and preventing terrorism. He also was the first to advocate the assassinating of terrorists and their leaders that kill americans, instead of the usual civilian retalliation bombing of foreign cities.
Everyone else talking today about terrorism is a "Johnny Come Lately". We should have listened to Harry Brown 10 years ago. Instead of deploying our troops all over the world in over 100 different countries under clinton, we should have instead defended our borders from terrorism and attack.
Come on Harry... This is a cultural war. Radical Islam doesn't like Western Civilization. Look at France.. They've fallen over and kissed the ass of every terrorist country in the world, yet they still get bombed by em...
Now a case can be made that we made a mistake in the late 1940s by throwing our support behind the creation of Israel, which seems to be one of the biggest reasons the Islamic countries hate us.
Now if Harry Browne were President and enacted his foreign policy lets say and the radical Islamic nations are on the verge of overruning Israel and the Jews asked for our help. Not troops but military supplies; would President Browne refuse on the grounds that our foreign policy must remain neutral???
Dittos!! except it is now millions flooding into our country, not thousands.Furthermore, as a policy started under clinton, our immigration offices have been forced to stop doing background checks which used to prevent criminals from coming over here.
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.