Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Libertarian response

r00+

New member
The last thing I wanted to see come from a political camp was an "I told you so."
Looks like the Libertarians were the first to get one out the door.
Here we go:

When will we learn?
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?
 
This is a response by a Libertarian. Harry Browne doesn't speak for all Libertarians.
I usually agree with him lots, but I think he's a slight off in this one...
 
I voted for Browne, and I tend to vote Libertarian across the board...but I flat disagree with the above

in fact, I disagree in general with the Libertarian views of a limited military and limited federal involvement in foreign relations

I'm curious as to other Libertarians' takes on the above...Badkins?....Mr Anderson?
 
Ferrus: I'm all over this, man!

I was just chattin' with Warik the other day about this, after looking at a poll on Excite that showed about 60% of those who participated WOULD NOT give up ANY rights in order to have safer airports/lines.

Over the past few months of Bush's presidency, although I have disagreed on occasion, I am finding I am more of a Republican than I previously thought.

I still admire and follow a lot of the tenets of Objectivism, which is closely linked to Libertarianism, yet in the VAST majority of strictly POLITICAL issues, I consider myself and ultra-conservative, FAR-right wing Republican.

I don't believe Harry Browne speaks for all Lib's, BUT, he was their presidential candidate. If this gets out, it will be a blow to the party that they didn't need.

I disagree 100% with the tone, and implications of this "I told you so" by Browne.

At this point, America must put aside its differences internally, and focus its energy. After that, we'll deal with right vs. left once again.
 
Thoughts

Well, I have agreed with some Libertarian thought, and have disagreed with it as well.

I think that Browne is THE Libertarian, just like Daschle is THE democrat.

It's deplorable. He obviously has no friends or relatives affected by this, is obvously not a true patriot.
 
I am a moderate Republican. Browne is way off base. We must respond strongly. The problem with the prior responses against terrorism was the responses were too weak. We left these bastards alive. We must take the WAR to the radical terrorists that committed these acts and those who enable them to act. launching a few missles is not enough. We must hunt down these leaders and terrorists and kill them. We must utterly destroy them. Our nation must never become isolationist because of fear of terrorists. RADICAL Muslims view America as the devil. We are not attacked because of our support of Israel or others. We are attacked because they believe we are the devil. They attack because we a predominately Christian. They attack because we are capitalist. Isolationism (sp) will end none of this. These radicals believe we are morally, economically and philosophically their enemies. It is time we acted like their enemeies and lett them know what that really means.

Badkins: You are an AGGIE. You must be a republican. Are they having some form of muster or service at the Admin bldg tonite?

hasta


litig8r
 
litig8r said:
The problem with the prior responses against terrorism was the responses were too weak. We left these bastards alive. We must take the WAR to the radical terrorists that committed these acts and those who enable them to act. launching a few missles is not enough. We must hunt down these leaders and terrorists and kill them. We must utterly destroy them. Our nation must never become isolationist because of fear of terrorists.

hasta


litig8r

Mr. Litig8r,

Remember me? I just thought I would let you know I read your post and felt as if it is somthing that could have come straight from my mouth.

GOOD POST!!!

Your old pal,
DBaller
 
litig8r: Howdy, are you an Aggie, too? I notice you're from Texas, where? Drop me a line -- [email protected], PM me, or just add it on here.

I don't know about any type of service, but I didn't go to any classes yesterday (I only have classes T/TH).

Ferrus: I like that...Liberpublican!
 
Badkins:
I was born in Bryan and have lived there on and off most of my life. Class of '83. Father '42, Gfather '19. I still live in the Brazos Valley.

Dballer:
hey bro. shit lately has kept me tied up. Hope things are well in Ga.


hasta

litig8r
 
r00+ said:
When will we learn that violence always begets
violence?

Can't agree with that, not always....remember Japan, they were very violent until the US took care of that. They are now a non-violent country that contributes to a civilized society.
 
The "swiss neutrality" thing is a gigantic and widely accepted fraud.

Switzerland has for centuries been accepting even demanding cash payments for acting "neutral" to resolved disputes between countries.

Who is housing Marc Rich? Why? Cash. How much money did they take from teh Nazis? (Billions)

Swiss neutrality is an oxymoron.

Sorry Harry. Comparing this terrorist act with invading Panama (stupid) Grenada (stupider) and Iraq (unfortunately necessary to our interests) is misguided.

We are not bombing Iraq every day. We went to great lengths not to kill civilians during teh Gulf War. How many POWs did we take, clothe, (they had no boots) feed, and not harm? Thousands.

We could have ended that war in A DAY, AND removed Saddam. All we had to do was bomb the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and we could have flooded Baghdad right off the map. The nation of Iraq would not exist today.

The US does a lot of shady shit abroad to protect its interests. Some of it is wrong. In a cosmic sense, a lot of it is offset by the overwhelming contributions we make with foreign aid and technology. (If AIDS in Africa ever gets under control, who will be leading teh charge with drugs and doctors? Nigeria? I doubt it.)

The US does not fly planes into civilian buildings in other countries just because we dislike their way of life.


I will never vote Libertarian until this guy is out of the party's picture.
 
Your missing Harry's point a little

You have to understand he is talking about the US never being overseas for anything governmental. He is saying why are we there or here or there fighting some battle between people who have been fighting each other for centuries. I agree with his thinking. I understand what he is saying. If we were never there in the first place we would not have this hatred agtainst us. Harry understands that we are there and people hate us and we have to retaliate now. He is just saying if we were never there in the first place none of this would affect us. It's a hard pill to swallow. NO HARRY IS NOT A BLEEDING HEART....Checkmate.....he just understands freedom very well. Something a lot of americans have no understanding of in todays world. People who vote for Dems usually have a hard time understanding what FREEDOM really means. There will always be idiots in the face of freedom, but you have to respect the freedom of the abiding ctizens who mind their own business.
 
Not So

We created the UN, the UN (lead by the US) forced Palestein to give up her lands to create a country called Isreal.

As such, the PLO and just about every other arab nation who sees Israel as a threat hate us.

The fact that we Helped Bin Ladin simply shows how messed up our enemies in the Middle East are.

America is probably the single most hated country throughout the world.

Browne is off-base in this regard. He is stating that we Deserved this, that the tens of thousands of innocent Americans that died Deserved it because of our foriegn policy.

I've long followed Browne's writings, most of them are solid and well thought out. In fact, in '96 I seriously considered voting for him.

His statement is literally one step away from anti-American sentiment. In my mind, this guy is a traitor.
 
He didnt say the US deserved it, he said they should have seen this coming. I mean really, how does a tiny country wage war against America? TERRORISM. It's not like they'll round up their handfull of tanks and a few thousands soldiers then go and do a full frontal assault on NYC. That'd be suicide.

I'm far from psychic, but it's not hard to predict that if the US strikes back hard at the COUNTRIES then there will be more terrorist acts in the US .. maybe even far worse than the ones from tuesday. You know that it doesnt take a real big nuclear bomb to do tons of damage? Russia has been selling their stuff to the middle east for a while now. Doesnt take a genius to put 1 and 1 together. Now isnt the time for knee-jerk reactions and revenge plots.
 
The anti-American and anti-israel feelings in teh Middle East are the work of Middle Eastern leaders who are too busy amassing billions in oil money to attend to the poverty of tehir own citizenry. Their citizenry is pissed. Poor people always are.

There are no Islamic democracies. Coincidence?

Where can Arabs vote for their leaders? Israel. The US. european nations. But not in teh Middle East where their religion is based. Seems kinda odd.

The answer is that the Arab and Middle Eastern leawders do not give a shit about their people, much less about Israel or America.

Like every other leader in the world, they care chiefly about maintaining power. In order to maintain their power and wealth, they have to direct the anger of the people elsewhere. israel and the US are different, so they are the targets.

With religion interwoven it is a tough cycle to break.

This has very very little to do with American intervention overseas. It has everything to do with power-hungry and greedy Middle Eastern leaders who will subvert and mislead their own people to continue to amass huge fortunes.

Harry should pull his head out of his ass and see that.
 
Top Bottom