As they say, statistics can say anything you want. Same with history if one wants to slice and dice. Here's another intering Q & A with Harry Browne.
When will we learn?
Part 3
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
In my last commentary, 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 last
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.
Friday 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, we 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 has been giving
money and military hardware to
prop up dictators for over 50
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." |
