When Will We Learn?

by Harry Browne

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 we will 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?

When Will We Learn? - Part II

by Harry Browne

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:

1. The terrorist attack was a horrible tragedy and I feel enormous sympathy for those who were personally affected by it. I wrote my article hoping that, however unlikely, it might be possible to prevent such a thing from ever happening again.

2. I hope anyone responsible for the attack who didn't die in it will be found, tried, and punished appropriately.

3. Terrorism by definition is the killing of innocent people in order to bring about some political or social change.

4. Terrorism may cause some changes in the short term, but it never leads to a conclusive victory, because it provokes a never-ending cycle of escalating violence on both sides.

5. The U.S. government has engaged in acts of terrorism over the past few decades -- bombing and starving innocent people in foreign countries, supposedly to force their leaders to make changes the U.S. government desires. Terrorism doesn't become "policing" or "justice" merely because it is our government doing it.

6. All Iraqis are not Saddam Hussein; all Serbs aren't Slobodan Milosevic; all Afghanis (or Saudis) are not Osama Bin Laden.

7. Killing innocent people in retaliation for the sins of other people isn't justice; it is terrorism. The terrorists were wrong to kill Americans to satisfy their grievances against American foreign policy. And to react to them by killing innocent foreigners would also be terrorism.

8. You can't make productive decisions at a time when your mind is clouded by anger, resentment, or thoughts of revenge.

The reactions I've received have been roughly 50-50 regarding my article.

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" to whom our government gave so much money and military hardware 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's 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 . . .

When Will We Learn? - Part III

by Harry Browne

In yesterday's article, I pointed out that killing innocent people is terrorism, no matter who does it -- free-lance terrorists, an international conspiracy, a foreign government, or our government. It would be wrong for our government to respond to this week's tragedy by committing further acts of terrorism against innocent foreign people.

Find the terrorist conspirators and punish them -- yes. Bomb innocent people -- no.

Yesterday I commented on some of the common themes we're hearing now to justify rash action by our government against foreign countries. Here are some more of what I've received in my mail.

Civil Liberties

"I don't mind giving up some more of my liberty in order to put a stop to these despicable acts."

I understand your sentiments, but I respectfully disagree with them -- for two reasons.

First, you have no idea what liberties are going to be taken from you. And whatever they are, you can have no expectation of ever getting them back -- even if the underlying problem goes away completely. For just one obvious example, income tax withholding was instituted as a war measure in 1942, and it is still with us today.

Second, taking away our liberties rarely achieves the goals used to justify the new oppression. Because of the Drug War, our government now rummages through your bank's records, looking for suspicious transactions you may have entered into; you and your property can be searched and seized without a warrant, without being convicted of anything, without even being accused of anything. And yet drugs are as widespread today as when these intrusions were put in place.

It's easy to say you support intrusions that you believe aren't likely to affect you personally. But I can assure you that any invasion of civil liberties will affect _you_ more than they do the truly guilty (who will quickly learn about the invasions and how to circumvent them).

World War II

"What about the situation in the 1930s, where the British under Chamberlain tried to appease rather than oppose Hitler, with horrible results?"

Many historians believe that if Chamberlain hadn't signed the Munich pact in 1938, but had instead gone to war immediately with Germany, an unprepared England would have been defeated easily. Instead, the delay gave England time to get ready to resist Hitler -- and even then, a better-prepared England just barely survived.

But "Munich" has become an all-purpose cliché to justify striking out violently against any foreign power that displeases our politicians: "If only Hitler had been stopped at Munich!" (as though at the time anyone had the resources to stop him). We need something more substantial than clichés to prevent future terrorist attacks.

"There are people like Adolf Hitler who are pure evil. You can't hide your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist. Our government must intervene overseas to root them out -- just as we did in World War II."

There are people with diseased minds in every part of the world -- from your neighborhood right on up to heads of state. Once you accept the idea that a preemptive strike is justified, where do you stop?

It is easy to cite World War II as an example of our government's proper intervention in world affairs -- but only if you start the story in the 1930s, just as people are starting the terrorist story at last Tuesday.

In 1917 World War I was winding down to a close. Germany was suing for peace. A negotiated settlement was close, and the world could have returned to its pre-war borders and peace. But it was not to be.

At that point Woodrow Wilson took America into the conflict. That intervention changed history irrevocably for the worse. Millions of fresh American soldiers streamed into Europe -- tipping the balance of power and overwhelming an enemy exhausted from three years of war. Germany and Austria surrendered, the German emperor fled to the Netherlands, and the Allies imposed devastating conditions upon a defeated Germany.

America's action transformed a functioning Germany with Kaiser Wilhelm on the throne into a prostrate Germany eager for revenge. And so a nation of great artistry that had produced the likes of Goethe and Wagner was willing to accept a dictator who promised to help them get even.

The humanitarian spirit that propelled America into a war to "end all wars" laid the groundwork for two of history's worst murderers -- Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

Although no one can say for sure, it seems very likely that if America had stayed out of World War I there would have been no World War II. And without that war and without a Soviet Union, there would have been no Cold War, no Korean War, no Vietnam War. The 20th century wouldn't have been an era of perfect peace, but it would have avoided being history's bloodiest 100 years.

Could Woodrow Wilson -- or anyone else -- have foreseen all this in advance?

No, and that's the point. Once you embark on the use of force -- for any purpose -- you have no idea what will fly up out of Pandora's box.

If you don't look for the causes that precede the events, you have no hope of ever preventing a repetition of the events.

What the terrorists did last Tuesday was wrong. But if we don't inquire into the background, and instead go off around the world on a holy Jihad of our own will unleash consequences none of us can predict. But we can be almost positive that they won't be to our liking.

"Don't you think that if we were to withdraw from the Mideast, that eventually some Arab dictator would unite the Arab-Islamic world (violently) and pose a real threat to us?"

Arab dictators aren't going to give up their fiefdoms to a single ruler. Nasser tried it with the United Arab Republic, but it lasted only a year or two. Bureaucrats in Europe love a central authority because it gives them _more_ dictatorial power. But that isn't likely to happen in the Middle East.

And what you suggest could be possible anywhere in the world. Does that justify the U.S. running the entire world? (Speaking of a single dictator!)

"Isn't it occasionally right to intervene on the behalf of people that are being massacred, such as in Serbia?"

In a free country, you should be free to send money -- or even yourself -- to any country in the world to aid any cause you believe in (which, incidentally, isn't completely legal under federal law today). But the American government shouldn't use your money to intervene or stir up resentments for causes you may not believe in.

"The world is our business, we all live here. Should people be suffering in East Timor or Iraq or Ethiopia/Eritrea and we just stand by and let it happen if we can do something? I don't think so. Taking _more_ responsibility for all the people of this planet and all the nations of the world would be a better stance."

That should be your choice. You should be free to help anyone anywhere in the world. But our politicians should not have the power to inflict violence on people in other countries in your name -- making you a target of retribution.

"We are a world power and we must act like one. This means being unpopular. This means intervening in the world because we have a responsibility to the world."

And it means having people attack us violently -- no matter how many security measures are taken and no matter how many liberties you give up. Is that what you want?

"You speak of our government meddling in other people's affairs. Give some specific examples."

Our government been giving money and military hardware to prop up dictators for over fifty years -- including people like Manuel Noriega of Panama, whom our government then kidnapped and put in prison in America. And supporting the very Afghanistan government that supposedly today is harboring Osama bin Laden. Although a lot of the support for dictators was explained as a way of fighting communism, it continues today.

Yes, I know that often the people who eventually replace the dictators are just as bad -- but that doesn't justify our government giving your money to either the dictators or their replacements.

Did you know that our government _still_ gives foreign aid to Afghanistan? Yes, the same country Bill Clinton attacked with Cruise missiles.

And we have troops stationed in almost a hundred countries even today.

If dictators took over America, how would you feel about foreign countries that helped keep those dictators in power? How would you feel if foreign troops were stationed in your city?

Do you really think there's anything strange about foreigners who love McDonald's but hate our government?

Good Words

I'm thankful to everyone who took the time to write me to voice a personal opinion -- for or against what I've said. I'm sorry that the volume of mail is so great that I couldn't possibly respond and thank you personally.

Although I've focused here on a sampling of the many complaints I've received, I've also received many supportive comments. Here is one from Katie Sweeney that makes an additional point.

"Thank you for asking the question that none of the 'experts' or politicians or news media will ask, which is: Just what have we done to make these people hate us so much?

"The politicians say it is just because we're a free country. That is the propaganda needed to get everyone riled up to join the military and give their lives in 'a battle of good vs. evil.' But the truth is what you said, 'We can't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually.'

"Today, I am filled with tremendous sadness. I am sad for the people who lost their lives and for their families and loved ones. But I am also sad because I know that nothing is going to be solved, and it will only get worse. The leaders will not speak the truth, and I don't even think the people want to hear it. The only talk is of revenge, not of following your three wise suggestions of what we should do. I feel very powerless to change the course that history is taking -- and very vulnerable to its consequences."

More to come, including what I believe we should do.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001

Answers

If violence breeds violence for us, then the rule must be universal, and therefore it is our sad duty to carry out this universal law, and teach THEM that violence breeds violence. Let THEM ask themselves why America hates them so.

And try, just try, to get your piece published in one of THEIR organs.

-- steedemeir (Son@ofa.gun), September 15, 2001.

Well, Unk, the libertarians remain safely immune from winning elections.

While Harry Browne is a reasonably intelligent fellow with a few good ideas, he acts like a smug asshole who has sole ownership of the Truth... as do many libertarians for that matter.

And Browne is wrong. Terrorism has been an effective strategy throughout history, though not always. Killing, including the killing of innocents, has changed the course of history. Today's America was created by the war (and often terrorism) against native americans. It is impossible to engage in war without killing innocents. I imagine Browne would have given an empassioned defense on how we should have dealt with Hitler. After all, all German are not Hess or Himmler.

Browne cannot prove an angry or hostile man is incapable of making rational decisions. The only way to eliminate terrorism is to hunt down and kill terrorists and those who support them.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), September 15, 2001.

Remenber,

Of course Republicans and Democrats and Greens NEVER act like smug assholes with sole ownership of the truth! LOL!

Yes, killing has changed the course of history, and innocents are killed right along with the guilty, but the genocide of the native Americans was certainly not a good and honorable thing.

We must surely hunt down and kill terrorists and their supporters, my only question is how best to do it. Can we indeed invade and rule over a huge portion of the Middle-East? And even if we can somehow manage to do that with our stretched-thin military, will doing so end the resentment toward America that breeds the mindset and numbers of these butchers? Or will it merely create more of it, and them?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

As an afterthought, this morning on Fox TeeVee I was watching their morning show. The hosts were discussing the possibility that from now on we Americans may be forced to walk around with a form of official ID card around our necks on a chain. One of the talking heads, Steve Doocey (sp?) said, and I quote, "Well, we might just have to give up our civil liberties in order to remain free"!!!

Talk about an oxymoron, with emphasis on the moron!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

I agree with the author of this article. It appears to me, that a great many of those who read his article, seem to mis-interpret what he is saying. What he is basically say- ing, and I agree whole heartedly, is that find the root cause of the problem, eliminate it, and the problem will automatically solve its self by not even being a problem in the first place. What those who mis-interpret are implying, is the anger, and the elimination of the effects of the problem that was caused by the root problem which is at the core. They have failed to see that it was the core problem that caused the hate in the first place. Without the core problem, then there would be no hate, and no bombing of our nation, with the resulting loss of life.

The root cause, if you will trace it, is our tax dollars. Our government gives them to friend and foe alike, more or less pitting one against the other. If we would keep our nose and money out of everybody else's business, let them fight their own battles, then this nation could be free from what happened to us the other day.

When these folks can plainly see what our tax dollars are going to do,and in deed has already done,this is not hid from them as it is us, the general public, they are going to redirect their anger in the right direction, and that is toward us, and of course, we, those whom the money has been forced from in the first place, must pay the ultimate price.

As he stated, we have to pay the price for their bullying of other nations and cultures. This my friend is not right. Our government needs closer monitor- ing, it has run amock, and is out of hand, it is bloated, and beginning to rot and stink to high heaven. It matters not which party is in, they seem to assume they have full control over we the slaves and the labors of our hands, which I am sorry to say, they do. It is too far out of control for we the common citizen to change. The vote will not do it, it is going to take a greater force than that. When money is able to buy, control, and run the nation, and it does, then we have lost full control, and we must let it run it's length, and hang its self, with us along with it. I am against all foreign aid, other than for humanitarian reasons, such as natural disaster, earthquakes, floods, etc. Let the people keep their money, do- not give it away as freely as the wind. Mind the business of our nation, and our people only. Of course all that I have said is no more than fatulence in a whirlwind. Things are go- ing to run their course, and God will eventually straighten it out for everybody, he will take it from our hands. YOu will then know a dictatorship as you have never known one. You will see the shedding of blood as you have never even visialized as being possible, you will see love displayed as you have never seen or imagined was possible. The reigns of governing will be taken from men's hands forever. The wealth that has been stolen will be returned to it's rightful owners. Folks forgive me for this outbust, I had to let it off someplace. If I have offended, I am sorry, but what is stated are my sentiments, and to see one who holds these same views ridiculed, sort of riles me. Forgive me, and God bless all of those of us who hold you dear to our hearts and lives. FS

-- Frank J. Surface (Fsur439@aol.com), September 15, 2001.

(sigh) My thoughts are posted on the "Fifty Years" thread, so I wouldn't want to repeat myself here.

In any case, I'm glad you posted this, Unk, because I now know who NOT to vote for next time.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

I THINK that I agree with Browne on this one. He's not at all suggesting that the terrorists go unpunished. He's simply not suggesting that widespread bombing of everyone and their mother is a prudent course of action. I agree with that approach.

The Israelis pulled off an asassination recently of a long known enemy by lobbing a few missiles into his office. He was decapitated, and the rest of the occupants of the building frightened, but basically unhurt.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 15, 2001.

I's good to know some are thinking. This wasn't done tous for no reason, although the average American had no reason to bother to learn what has been going on in the world. maybe now, after the initial shock wears off and people go through the stages of grief over it, they will eventually get to the point where they will look for the actual reasons it was done. people have a need to understand when hit by a tragity. it takes time and people go therough the steps in different order and are in each of them for different periods of time.

I wish out government would stop the propaganda and realise we don't want to propagate this form of action against us by doing the same thing that caused it in the first place. We need to let them know this how we feel individually and stop letting them tell us what we feel.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), September 15, 2001.

"He's simply not suggesting that widespread bombing of everyone and their mother is a prudent course of action."

I agree with this comment completely.

-- Eve (eve_rebelkah@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

I definately agree with Browne on this one. He isn't saying the perps should go unpunished, and he's not jumping to conclusions. WE DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN IF OSAMA BIN LADEN ORIGINATED THIS ACT. We have made a lot of enemies in this world, and we'll look real stupid if we act wrongly in haste. The guy is an extremist who hates us. But, he's not the only one. Besides, it IS possible that a bunch fanatics living in America could decide to do this on their own.

Let's put this in perspective, people. It looks like there are 5,000 - 6,000 dead as a result of this. That's how many people die in this country every day. Please get this straight -- I'm not trying to minimize the horrific act -- I'm just saying all things considered, this act isn't going to cripple us and we need to react with reason -- NOT extremism.

We pay a price to live in a free society, and sometimes that price is human lives.

Somehow I think Browne understands this along with human nature and karma. I think he, like me, is wondering where it will all end if we don't get it right. We must be prudent and only act when we know for certain who is involved. Either that, or be the most hated people in the world.

-- Betsy Ross (Red White @nd .blue), September 15, 2001.

Oh, here we go with the evil gooberment again!

"I wish out government would stop the propaganda"

What propaganda you stupid bitch? You mean those thoughts people are vocalizing on TV? People are saying and sorting out what they think just like you are. I guess that makes YOU an evil progandist too. I'm able to contain my hatred for you only by imagining my spit running down your cheek.

-- Betsy Ross (Red White @nd .blue), September 15, 2001.

Betsy, do you need some medication to cope, deary? I think you're losin it.

-- (cin@cin.cin), September 15, 2001.

No, and I'm not your "deary".

Besides, I don't give one whit about any of your opinions. I quit reading anything written by you a long time ago because you never have anything of substance to contribute.

-- Betsy Ross (Red White @nd .blue), September 15, 2001.

tsk tsk such hostility you poor deary

sorry unk for sidetracking your thread

**Now back to your regularly scheduled programming**

-- (cin@cin.cin), September 15, 2001.

when,WILL folks ever get IT!!

IN THE LAST AGE>> A TIME OF TROUBLE,SUCH AS THE WORLD HAS NEVER KNOWN.

*THE CUP IS FULL FOLK'S* HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), September 15, 2001.

Criminy Unk. Timing is everything in politics. Even the Democrats and Republicans can figure out that this just aint the right time for apoligisms. Whatever national introspect comes of all this it's sad to see Browne's untimely mouth further politically marginalize Libertarian ideals.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 15, 2001.

I'm with Browne on this one. To get a glimpse of what's likely to happen, one only has to ask oneself "What good have any of the past half-dozen cruise missile campaigns done besides stir up anger and burn up billions of tax dollars?"

Do any of you "bomb first, ask questions later" people have any *inkling* of how much of *our* money this government 'needs' because of this?

The $40 billion is just the tip of the iceberg. Even if we ignore all the pork-bellying and government waste of the past, one only has to look at what they are now talking about being necessary to repair the pentagon in order to get some idea of how well this $40B will be spent. They are saying it will cost between "$100 million and $1 billion" for repairs. That's right - possibly a billion dollars (surely to overrun if past performance is anything to go by) to repair a 250-foot wide, 5-storey high section of building. To put it in perspective, that's 1000 men being paid $1 million each to do the work. (I'm not counting the building materials and architects which could easily be had for a mere million or two).

The days of the $700 ashtray and $1200 hammer are still with us.

Things couldn't be working out better for the BushMob - plenty of money for all at the trough, great business for the oil and arms industries and full acceptance by the sheeple of things that, a week ago, were causing outrage (spy cameras at every street corner, mandatory personal ID, e-mail snooping, no need for warrants in many cases etc. etc.) Not to mention a good excuse to ignore everything else including education and healthcare (Bush has already said that revenge is the 'sole purpose' of his government now).

Where will we be in a year's time? My guess is several hundred billion dollars poorer as a country, guilty of the deaths of 100s of thousands of innocents, facing an ever-multiplying array of terrorist groups bent on revenge and yet not a single responsible person brought to justice. I could go on, but those who agree can think for themselves and those that don't... the best of luck to you and yours.

-- Just (another@anonymous.poster), September 15, 2001.

Carlos,

Browne has been saying these very things for years.

BTW, I saw a retired Army general on the box today. He said this sort of conflict could go on for as many as EIGHT to TEN YEARS or MORE! Does the American public have the fortitude to carry it through?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Its a WAR against terrorists. All of them. We are taking them all on. This is what World War III is. The good guys kicking terrorists and terror supporting countries into the dirt. You are with us or you are against us. Now do the right thing.

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@terrorists.com), September 15, 2001.

For now, just ONE of the problems I have with this...

Browne clouds the crucial distinction between our invasions or bombings, which were NOT aimed with the intention of murdering innocent civilians, with what just happened, which WAS aimed directly at murdering innocent civilians.

But I can't determine from this alone if he's just dense or has some ulterior motive.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Hey Tony,

In language you will understand...

FUCK YOU. I can kick ass with the best of them, no problemo there. I want these fuckers finished off too. What I am interested in is discussing HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT, and what is the BEST WAY to STOP IT ONCE AND FOR ALL.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Eve,

I didn't realize that dead innocent people who are killed on purpose are different from dead innocent people who are killed by accident.

My mistake.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

I'm sorry, I should allow for the possibility that he knows of an instance or more where the US gov't. DID officially go out and kill civilians just for kicks, or because God told us to, etc. In other words, for no rational purpose. But if so, I'm pretty sure he would have detailed this.

Of course that wouldn't justify what the terrorists did anyway.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Eve,

I didn't realize that dead innocent people who were killed for a rational purpose are different from dead innocent people who were killed for an irrational purpose.

My mistake again.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

"I didn't realize that dead innocent people who are killed on purpose are different from dead innocent people who are killed by accident."

So, Unk, you and/or Harry would focus on criticizing us for killing innocents when we bombed Berlin just as you and/or Harry would when we bombed Libya, and lump those situations together as being morally the same as regarding the murdered innocents in New York?

No difference in contexts, eh?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

$50 billion approved for the war, $40. Billion for the victims off the attacks. Taken from the Social Security trust fund. With the approval of congress. As we were shown the same footage over and over, things like that were not barely mentioned.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), September 15, 2001.

Unc will check your e-mail or meet me in boks?

-- (I @found.it!), September 15, 2001.

Oh there is a differene in context, but not in result.

To be quite honest with you I am not particularly enjoying playing devil's advocate in this situation. My gut instinct is to wipe 'em all out too. I just wonder if doing so is a never-ending pursuit.

What say you about his point about the Swiss? Why aren't they beset by this kind of thing?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

"What say you about his point about the Swiss? Why aren't they beset by this kind of thing?"

Offhand I have no idea. We don't even officially know yet why we were attacked, do we? Maybe our wealth offended them. Maybe our big buildings created a Freudian sexual issue for them. Maybe Allah came to bin Laden in a dream and told him if he did it in this way on Sept.11 Allah would see to it bin Laden would get an extra virgin in paradise. Who the hell knows?

In other words, you're essentially asking me to get inside the mind of the insane and try to determine by reason and logic why they haven't attacked the Swiss. That's a pretty tall order, big guy -- like a contradicion in terms, ya know?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Unk, I'm sorry, I hope I haven't come across as too overbearing -- well, bitchy -- here. I respect your opinions, even when I disagree. It's just that this whole thing's got my blood boiling like almost nothing else ever has -- as I'm sure it's affected you and most of the rest of us.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

No problem Eve, I don't mean to be a dick myself. Emotions are running high right now, mine included.

This piece by Browne has done one thing though, it has made people at the very least react to an opinion that runs against the grain. Not a bad thing in my mind.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Understood Eve. As for the Swiss Unk, they don't have anything anybody else wants.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 15, 2001.

Howdy UnK:

Now, I don’t want to upset you; I have already been deleted on this board, for content, more times than I have been deleted on any other board; this includes Ed. e.g., Diane never deleted any of my posts.

Now about Harry. I live in a very politically active town. Harry and his vice both put in appearances during the last election. Ten people came to listen to Harry. None showed for the vice and his "rally" was canceled.

My observation is that Browne is like George Will. Just not relevant. The world changes and they don’t. Therefore, no one listens to them. It has always been this way and it will always be this way. Good that you believe; in a way you are a Libertarian version of Al-D. Cap and I have discussed this long before your board. Without a change, the Libertarian party is another fading fringe group.

As my pup said tonight, where is my dog bone. At least he doesn’t ask for contributions.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 15, 2001.

Oh hell Z, I'm not gonna delete ya, I know deep down inside you really do love me.

And I tend to agree with you, re the Libertarian Party. It's fine to be a 'party of principle', but politics is the art of the possible, and you need to get a bite of the pie before you can even consider swallowing the whole thing.

Having said that, they still match my ideology closer than any other party, what's a guy to do?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 15, 2001.

Unk,

Where are the people here who are advocating the wholesale bombing of everyone in, say, Afghanistan?

I certainly don't advocate that.

If you want a quick look at the weapons we're like to be using, have a look at this link.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 15, 2001.

Mr. Browne is right,America needs to go back to its constitution, no foreign wars.....

-- Will (righthere@home.now), September 15, 2001.

So many thoughts.....so many threads.

The emotional side of me says we should bomb the life out of anyone who gleefully rejoices in the carnage of Tuesday, to wipe them from the face of the Earth to be heard from no more.I too find myself willing to wage a one man holy war against those that would kill my fellow Americans, even if it also meant my demise in the process.If I could make that happen I would.

But through the emotions and in conflict with those emotions my logical, rational and common sense side tells me not to jerk my knee so fast and to think through the ramifications of my vengeful blood lust.

Do I want to see the scum pay for what they have done? HELL YES!!! Death suits them very well and I would personally deliver the invites to their going away party.

Now, with my emotions in more of my command and offering myself more time for contemplation, I am tested by the "how to's" of accomplishing this goal.For, if this is a test it is a one shot deal to either get it right or pay dearly for a very long time for a wrong answer.

Sinse Tuesday I have truly concluded that our country, our world, will never be the same and I'm not talkin about a longer line in an airport either.Maybe it's the doomer in me I thought I had shaken, but it seems to me that the events of this past week are the impetus to a cascading number of possibilities that all lead in the end to World War 3.So let the good times roll and get yer ya ya's out while you can.Hard times are on the horizon if we make the wrong decisions on this one.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), September 16, 2001.

Cap'n,

Your hittin' on all cylinders...

Is revenge and retaliation worth WWIII?

But, these special bastards are not going to go away quietly. They are after our blood.

growlin' at the TV...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), September 16, 2001.

IMHO,make sure your saved by the blooD of CHRIST-SIMPLE FAITH. ACCEPT THE FREE-GIFT OF SALVATION[PAID FOR] THEN WHEN THE NUKES start flying-the bio-crap is everywhere. hang onto the promise= a new earth a new heaven. BE THERE. WITH LOVE, YOUR RESIDENT VILLAGE IDIOT.

is my spelling better???? :)

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), September 16, 2001.

Al =)

-- (cin@cin.cin), September 16, 2001.