[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You think he was simply referring to the amount of territory on the map?
If you are going to a private school, I suggest demanding a refund.
[/quote]
Beat ya to it, BB!
Poor Al -
These mean old neo-cons are picking on you and I don’t think it’s very fair. I’ll jump in on your side, just so that you can have at least half a brain fighting for you, kay?
Baby Al (Kid)- ask and you shall receive.
The dear reader is invited to “check out this fantastic piece” contains the following statement under “The Facts”:
“In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today.”
The United States has by far the world’s largest economy, and its military is far ahead of the next few down the list combined.
So what Browne wrote, and you posted, is that Austria in 1914 had by far the largest economy in Europe and a military bigger than the combined totals of next few in line. He said, in effect, that Austria had a far larger economy than Germany, France, and Britain, and was more militarily capable than all of them put together.
Again, Browne writes, and you post, that these are among the facts.
OK, sure.
When it is pointed out that this is widely regarded as anything but fact, you retreat to the following:
“The Austro-Hungarian empire may have been rapidly deteriorating in the years leading up the first World War, but it DID dominate most of central and eastern Europe, in geo-political terms. Ultimately this proved to be the cause of its demise- and it is this salient point that Browns uses in his piece.”
Really. If it was rapidly deteriorating but still dominant, then the nations around it were going down hill faster. So the Austrians would not have had to ask the Germans for a blank check to hold off the Russians, allied with the French, while they punished the Serbs. So no German ultimatum to the Russians, no refusal, no mobilization, no Schlieffen Plan, no path through Belgium, no British participation, no blockade, no sinking ships, no American involvement. Sure.
Or, the salient point is that Austria was dominant, and it proved to be its demise. Really, how?
Or, we can go to the historical record, which reveals your “flagrant ignorance” and that you are “supremely clueless.”
Austria was not dominant in Central, and more to the point, Eastern Europe. A map of Europe will show you that the continent runs to the Ural Mountains, meaning that its geographical contents would include Russia. If Austria dominated Russia, it wouldn’t have had to ask the Germans for help when it dealt with the Serbs. That request for and offer of help set the chain in motion that led to US participation in the Great War. The Germans told the Russians to stand down, the Russians refused, the Germans mobilized and told the Russian’s allies to the west to back off, and they refused. Anticipating a Russian attack leaving them vulnerable in the west, they struck first enacting the Schlieffen Plan, invading Belgium, which prompted British participation, who blockaded the Germans, who replied with submarine warfare, later of the unlimited type. For the United States to have yielded would have led to anarchy on the high seas, in which lone seventeen year olds, bravado and all, would not have been able to defend their freedom to do as they please. Or, for that matter, for its citizens to trade with whom they please.
Further evidence of Austrian domination of Central and Eastern Europe can be found in the success of Austrian forces against the Eastern European Russian armies, you know, the ones they dominated. Oh, wait a minute, they fetched some serious beatings.
So basically what I’m saying is that Browne’s argument is built on a historical turd, and you can’t polish it enough to make it true. What you think you know is wrong.
The only reason that I brought up your age, besides to humor you a bit, is for mercy. At your age, you aren’t expected to know that much and guess what, you don’t. Nor are you expected to know that you don’t know much- no surprise there either.
Now, let us move along with the lesson.
“Coercion doesn’t produce results.” Yes, it does, just not the ones that you want. Why else would you be bitching so much?
I, Schrauper, am “a fan of coercion and big government.” Here’s your first homework assignment kid- find my posts that prove your point.
“How I am self-righteous?” Well, my boy, sit back and fetch yourself some learnin’. How are you “confident of one’s own righteousness (uprightness or morality) especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.” Well now, I am of the opinion that Browne’s argument is built on a foundation of false information, comical ignorance if you will , and I provide evidence culled from the historical record. What do you do? Call me “supremely clueless and arrogant” and state that my “reasoning is on the level of a 5 year old.” Then, without evidence, you proclaim my love for coercion and big government. Please.
Mr Al Shades, Al, Fellow T-man, Baby Al, Kid, Boy, Son, whatever- lighten up.
You don’t know how much you don’t know and can’t- you’re seventeen. We expect piss and vinegar out of you. It’s called being young. Why did you post that piece in the first place? You had no motivation? You weren’t trying to sell anyone on anything? You weren’t trying to advance a point of view you agreed with? Did you expect a bunch of different people with different experiences and knowledge bases to see the light right away? If you did, you haven’t been reading your von Mises or Hayek and need to get cracking the books.
Lighten up and try to enjoy your youth. It goes way too quickly, and before you know it there is more than plenty enough serious shit that you have to deal with. Some day you might know what I am talking about.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s not a conservative, that’s a radical.[/quote]
Yeah, radical to a liberal or a to a neoconservative/neofascist. There’s nothing “radical” about restoring the government to it’s fundamental, constitutionally-ordained functions. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is not treated as a radical by his own colleagues - he is treated as an outdated relic of the past. A past which didn’t involve wars of imperialism and a national police state. “Radical,” my ass.
A strong national defense acts as a major deterrent to war. Look at the Swiss. A strong national offense with a weak or non-existent defense is the single greatest factor that precipitates war. Look at the Roman Empire; it conquered the known world, yet it was always being invaded. The mere suggestion that any other nation would attempt to attack the United States, nevermind some shithole of an Islamic state, is pure horseshit. The only possible threat posed to America by other nations is that of a nuclear/missile strike - and this could be eliminated with the implementation of a working missile defense system. Incidentally, Harry Browne is a strong advocate of this - provided that the task of developing the system was in the hands of a private company, not a federal bureaucracy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s not the way war is fought nowadays. Given the nature of asymmetric warfare - ie, terrorism - and range of missile war, old-fashioned ‘sit and wait’ tactics can be renamed to ‘sit, wait, and get eliminated post-haste’.[/quote]
I just addressed the missile threat. There is no half-bit dictator alive (and there never will be) who would EVER launch missiles against the United States unprovoked, because he would have to know that this would result in a swift and immediate American military response as well as his own extraction from power. These thugs seek to rule their own domains with an iron fist, not to go abroad and challenge superpowers like the United States - they are almost entirely isolationist. Terrorism is a completely unrelated threat, and it is a phenomenon caused directly by “pre-emptive” (imperialist) military intervention.
Tell me: have you ever bothered to listen to the messages issued by Osama Bin Laden or high-ranking Islamic “terrorist” groups on a regular basis? If you had, you’d know they all share a common theme: These people view the United States as an infidel that has ENCROACHED ON THEIR TERRITORY, and therefore MUST be driven back. It’s not about oil, about SUVs, Big Macs, or our “vast personal freedoms.” It’s about the U.S. troops stationed all across the Middle East, in their most revered cities, and our massive support of Israel, which they rightfully view as their mortal enemy.
How would you like it if China decided that the United States was a potential threat, and decided on a “pre-emptive” invasion that left foreign troops permanently stationed in your town?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
After all, in a ‘sit and wait’ posture, we could always just prosecute terrorists after the fact. But then Western justice might be seen as too cruel and unjust to our enemies, and in your pathological victimology, create more mini-Hitlers?
[/quote]
In a “sit and wait” posture, this country wouldn’t have any terrorists to deal with, period. Terrorism is not a new phenonemon. It has been used for centuries as a way of effective resistance against imperial oppression. If all overseas troops were brought home and our government refrained from dictating the affairs of other nations, what possible reason could there be for inciting terrorist attacks? Don’t make me laugh and say “our freedoms” - that’s the most retarded argument in the history of man.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And, if we were to be completely isolationist, the argument that we would have fewer enemies is hogwash. The current enemy of the West doesn’t hate the West for its meddling - it hates the West for what it is. After all, Islamists wanted to blow up the red-light district in the Netherlands - was it because imperialist potheads were oppressing Arabs somewhere?[/quote]
You’re right, they hate the west for what it is: a MEDDLING, infidel, superpower that stations troops in their holiest cities and gives support to their greatest regional enemy. The two notions are inseperable to them, as they would be to you in the same situation. During WWII, do you think that American patriots were saying, “Boy, it sure was mean of those Japs to sneak attack us, but aside from that they’re pretty nice people and they have a beautiful culture!” Or during the Cold War, were people saying, “Those Russkies could potentially wipe us out in an instant, but they sure do make great tasting borsch!” Wake up, smell the coffee, and use your fucking brain a little. Arabs are not pre-programmed bots hellbent on destroying western freedoms and civilization. The vast number of them who have peacefully emigrated to Western nations is a good enough indication of that.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nope. The old rules never change. They want power and conquest. Waiting on them to come to our borders and attack our cities is suicide. Being purely isolationist in Harry Browne’s world is nothing short of a national death sentence.
[/quote]
EVERY SINGLE Jihadist-“propaganda” report released in the Arab world speaks of either “defending the holy land,” or “driving back the infidel” or some such decree - there is NEVER any mention of overrunning the world - or the West. These people want us OUT. That is IT and that is ALL. It’s not the hardest concept to understand.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Of course it is about placing blame. Don’t castigate the policy and then offer up some sniveling excuse. Browne - and you - blame American ‘imperialism’ for the dangers we face. [/quote]
As I have said before, it’s about identifying the causes of previous wars and catostrophes so as to prevent their reoccurence. Simple enough?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But the Soviet Union didn’t want to crush the US because we were imperialists - legitimately. They wanted our rival form of society to be snuffed out. At no point had we oppressed them - the opposite was true, in WWII, we aided them quite a bit from Hitler’s attempts to conquer the Russians - but they were one of our most notorious enemies of the 20th century (see the Cold War).[/quote]
The Soviets never had any intention of “crushing” or “invading” the West. If you know anything about the Communist movement in that country, you’d know that Stalin was purely an isolationist - just like Hussein, Kim Jong Ill, Mao, and many others. It was Leon Trotsky, one of the founders of the communist revolution in Russia, who advocated the radical policy of interventionism in the interest of spreadng communism - the “global proletarian revolt”. These days, our administation is pursuing a “benevolent world hegemony,” which is essentially the same concept as that espoused by Trotsky, and it’s no suprise, because many of the neocons who spear-headed the effort to lead us into war are ex-Trotskyists themselves. Irving Kristol is one example. He’s the father of Bill Kristol, both of them prominent neocons (Fox News, the Weekly Standard) and he started out as a Trotskyist. This is the supreme irony of today’s “conservatism” and it’s supporters, such as yourself: You denounce fervently denounce liberals while promoting fascist-liberal ideologies that originated with the hated commies of yesteryear.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nonsense. WWII may have been avoided if nations actually enforced the Versailles treaty. To blame the tragedy of WWII on the US is selective, revisionist history at its most naked. Lay it at the feet of a genocidal madman with a dream of world conquest. Trying to give the Germans cover by saying ‘it’s not your fault, we hurt your feelings in WWI’ belies even what modern Germans say about the catastrophe of WWII.[/quote]
The facts have already been presented on this issue, and I’ve made my case. It’s up to you to address the points I made and refute them.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Besides, where does this victimology begin and end? Why can’t the US ever claim it?[/quote]
I’m sure it can can, as soon as you name a single instance in the 20th century in which the United States was attacked by another nation, unprovoked.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Prove it. The entire public? Passive submission? I can’t wait for the data.
[/quote]
You name the war and I’ll tell you the lies that were used to sell it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You mean in Gulf War I, Iraq didn’t invade Kuwait? Egad.
[/quote]
When did I ever say that? That’s got nothing to do with the multitude of lies that were told throughout the Gulf War. Are you aware that, immediately prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the American ambassador in that region condoned the act?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nope, but it does have the right to protect its own national security and wage war. The grant is broad. I am not here to suggest that I think every war has been a stellar idea, but war powers are quite expansive.[/quote]
Preemptive and never-ending war is a death sentence for national security.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Don’t forget, James Monroe was a coveted Founding Father - but it was he that began the Monroe Doctrine - which, by your definition, would be imperialism.
[/quote]
The Monroe Doctrine was a forgotten relic of the past when it was dug up by imperialist politicians in the 19th century who saught to justify their ambitions. Monroe himself had nothing to do with it’s implementation.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Harry Browne is a naive utopian who couldn’t be trusted to provide the kind of leadership needed for a Girl Scout Cookie drive. Unfortunately, Browne has no sense of how the world is - you and Harry keep talking about the Founding Fathers - are you prepared to give up the land you live on, Al Shades, to the people it was taken from before the Europeans landed here? After all, the culmination of all this wretched imperialism was the landing at Plymouth Rock - right? If you’re going to view the world in extremes and absolutes, I expect you to hold yourself to the same standard, abandon your fidelity to a government set up by imperialists, and give your house/apartment to the next Native American you can find.
[/quote]
Harry Browne isn’t an anti-imperialist, per se. He’s a pro-Constitution, American patriot. The U.S. Constitution is anti-imperialist.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Anyway, Browne is the political equivalent of the crazy uncle you don’t let near heavy machinery. Browne and his silly utopian blueprints are best kept at arm’s length away from any serious-decision making.[/quote]
Can you explain to me how returning this nation to the state it was in a century ago (or even less) qualifies as Utopian? Are you aware, for example, that prior to WWI, there was no income tax and no drug laws - a child could walk into any pharmacy and purchase medicinal cocaine. Yet the streets weren’t lined with drug addicts; in fact, the drug “problem” was NON-EXISTENT compared to today. The government wasn’t running bankrupt without an income tax, either. It wasn’t Utopian, it was American. What we have today is Orwellian.
I dunno, seems we get an inordinate share of nuts on the political thread…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Poor Al -
These mean old neo-cons are picking on you and I don’t think it’s very fair. I’ll jump in on your side, just so that you can have at least half a brain fighting for you, kay?[/quote]
I am taking a seminar on Strauss this semester…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Actually, if you watch the Rodney King video in its entirity you will see ole’ Rodney give those cops one heck of a fight! If memory serves me I think he was beating up 3 of them before they took him down.
(off topic but interesting)
[/quote]
That’s why I take angel dust preworkout. It makes me wicked strong.
JeffR, your posts are generally not worth replying to since you like to make purely subjective statements instead of addressing the specific points with which you disagree.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
It didn’t fly anywhere. That comment fell flat. It was a fitting preamble to the other misinformation to follow.
Please read SOMETHING about the period.[/quote]
A) If it fell flat, point out how. Until you expertly refute it, point-by-point I will assume that you are unable to.
B) If there was “other misinformation,” then point that out as well.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
You actually ARE the classic “rebel without a cause.” When your mind has been seasonsed by experience, you will cringe at some of the crap that you have written.[/quote]
Every single thing that I write is based on infallible logic. It’s a linear process that starts with very basic convictions and builds up into complex arguments. There is no place for “experience,” here. And don’t even mention that word until you’ve gone and fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. You have no more experience than me, you pompous brat.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
For most of the posters (including myself) you are a painful reminder of what we were (and weren’t) at age 17. I have to admit, I was more informed than you. However, like you, I did labor under the delusion that I knew more than I did.
[/quote]
That’s great to know. And to me, you and your fellow chickenhawks are a painful reminder that I live in a world populated by those who lack the ability to think clearly. You and your supporters have diseased minds. Worse yet, you’re incurable.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
No crutch. Just experience.
[/quote]
“Experience” has nothing to do with the scope of this conversation. It’s a crutch, plain and simple. I’ve seen it used time and again.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
How altruistic of you.
[/quote]
I never claimed to be an altruist. I specifically stated that I was an egoist/individualist. What part of that don’t you understand? Oh, right, I forgot - the entire thing.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
There was a very successful election in Afghanistan and Iraq recently. Perhaps you noticed them?[/quote]
ROFL. The first actual point you make that’s related to this discussion, and what a suprise - it’s PURE BULLSHIT. “Very successful election” my ass. Afghanistan’s US-Appointed Leader fears for his life, and Iraq’s elections couldn’t have been been held without a platoon of American troops surrounding every polling center. Such irony: you preach on and on about “experience” and age, yet you’re living in a fantasy world sponsored by the U.S. government and a complacent media. Here, ignoramus, have some facts:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/IraqElections.htm
And if you dismiss either of them as “liberal ideology,” not worthy of your time (bullshit), then I’ll simply copy and paste them for you.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
How special. “Allegation” Maybe it was the armless, eyeless, and hopeless Iraqi’s who stood in the Oval Office in front of W. I’m glad he finally made the call.[/quote]
This is such an infantile point that I’m not going to bother responding.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Can you also predict the future? I’d like to know which horse to back at the Preakness.[/quote]
I can’t predict the future, but I can predict human stupidity to the letter.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Let me guess, NO TAXATION!!! Anarchy!!! We’ll all work together to patrol, light, and clean the streets!!! Why? Because we are all altruistic characters.[/quote]
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Refer to Article I, Section 8, Clause I, and shutup. You still can’t grasp the difference between a state of anarchy (which I personally favor, but is in NO WAY being advocated on this thread) and a state of Constitutional, Libertarian government as described by Harry Browne.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
FDR.
[/quote]
FDR’s platform was that of enriching society and ending poverty. Naturally, this resulted in the massive expansion of government during the New Deal, but that wasn’t how it was sold. It never is.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Didn’t you say not to bring age into this? Then a few paragraphs later, the 5-year old comment.
[/quote]
Was I bringing his age into it? No, because I don’t know his age, and I’m not trying to guess it. I was telling him what he sounded like to me. That’s different than looking at his age and making a derogatory remark based on it.
[quote]Al Shades wrote:
Every single thing that I write is based on infallible logic. It’s a linear process that starts with very basic convictions and builds up into complex arguments. [/quote]
You and socrates. Wisdom for the ages.
Quick Hijack
[quote]Al Shades wrote:
You still can’t grasp the difference between a state of anarchy (which I personally favor, but is in NO WAY being advocated on this thread)
[/quote]
True “Anarchy” ( New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.] )
Is impossible for the human condition. There have always been, and will always be Natural leaders, followers, enforcers… Ect.
Hijack over
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Al Shades wrote:
Every single thing that I write is based on infallible logic. It’s a linear process that starts with very basic convictions and builds up into complex arguments.
You and socrates. Wisdom for the ages.[/quote]
You know, Al, you’re never going to get anywhere in life until you get a little self confidence.
I visited Vienna once…knew a hotty there named Trina
A LITTLE knowledge can be a dangerous thing…let’s hope our seventeen year old pal doesn’t decide to read Mein Kampf
MicroSlash
AL- just a quick piece of advice from a fellow 17 yr old who isn’t thrilled with all the policies and actions our country takes. I share several of your convictions, but really, all that can be hoped is an eventual swing over to our ideals.
These posters probably know more history than me + you combined and then squared. I have most likely read some of the same articles, interent sites that you have, and so I know the ideas which you are a proponent of.
However, you nor I have lived through and expeirenced as much as the more veteran posters here on T-Nation [nice term for “old guys” huh :)]
Just take a chill pill my friend, carry your ideas with you, but learn both sides; the world it is, and the world you believe it should be.
Now, im going out to the movies with my girl, than im playing some poker later. I think you should do similar activites. As a poster on this thread so accurately stated, there’s going to be plenty of serious shit for us to worry about when we get older, so just relax for now, and at least attempt to enjoy life.
[quote]MicroSlash wrote:
I visited Vienna once…knew a hotty there named Trina
MicroSlash[/quote]
puttin the sausage in Vienna since 99
…or something like that.
Sorry, MSlash, I just look forward to your little sign off lines so much…
Grin, well Trina did appreciate the 'ol schnitzel, Joe…
MicroSlash - "“Endlessly repeating ‘auf meinem Eid sind Sie das reizvollste Madchen in Osterreich’ to countless Austrian T-vixens since GnR played the Habsstaddium on the Appetite for Destruction Tour.”
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
MicroSlash wrote:
I visited Vienna once…knew a hotty there named Trina
MicroSlash - puttin the sausage in Vienna since 99
…or something like that.
Sorry, MSlash, I just look forward to your little sign off lines so much…[/quote]
“In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today”
Good grief.
I’m sorry, Europe, more so the world was ‘dominated’ as you so put it, in 1914 by the colonial powers which were at the time: Britain and France. Germany was (if I remember correctly) a relatively new county, but was still the senior partner to the Austro-Hungarian empire.
The next time a teenager feels the need to voice their opinion on anything, especially poitics or history, I would ask that they follow this procedure:
- Shut up.
- Finish your education.
- Get a job.
- Try supporting yourself and surviving in the world for a few years.
- Voice opinion, founded in worldly experience and hard learned lessons, rather than soundbytes and slogans.
“Both WWII and 9/11 could have been avoided if this nation didn’t pursue a foreign policy of aggression and imperialism.”
Blimey, I just re-read this part and nearly passed out.
WWII was influenced more by US isolationism than aggression. The people didn’t want to be drawn into another war, as the problems in Europe were viewed as problems for the Europeans to deal with.
The reason Hitler rose to power was largely due to the punitive damages assigned to them, in order to repay the costs of the First World War (These harsh conditions were demanded by the French, not the US).
WW2 started because the British and French eventually acted against the Germans after a long period of inaction - early aggression on the part of the allies could have perhaps stopped the conflict ever occurring.
(This post is in very broad terms without resorting to an essay)
The issue of 9/11 occurring due to US ‘imperialism’ or ‘aggression’ is idiotic. islam is in a perpetual state of war, that will not stop until we are either converted or conquered.
These people are determined to wipe us from the face of the earth, whether we obtain our oil from their countries or not.
Now I think this thread has truly gone to shit. New people are coming in to take the place of the old ones, only to rehash the same exact garbage that was already refuted on the first page. It seems as though none of you are capable of looking past the “domination” sentence, which, ill-worded as it may be, is neither strictly incorrect nor pertinent to the central theme of the article. It’s really getting pathetic, so I’ll act accordingly. I’m not going to waste any more of my time writing up lengthy essays to refute the bullshit that gets posted, since I already did so for 2 pages straight. Instead, I’ll personally respond to any original ideas that might surface (a novelty on this thread), and simply address the rest of the crap by citing other sources. So, flamers, consider this your last bit of fuel. You’re running on fumes from now on.
[quote]emptymyth wrote:
Quick Hijack
Al Shades wrote:
You still can’t grasp the difference between a state of anarchy (which I personally favor, but is in NO WAY being advocated on this thread)
True “Anarchy” ( New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.] )
Is impossible for the human condition. There have always been, and will always be Natural leaders, followers, enforcers… Ect.
Hijack over[/quote]
Anarchy isn’t being discussed on this thread, so you can’t “hijack” it by posting what you believe to be a refutation of said concept. Don’t make assumptions about my personal views, because chances are, you’ll be very wrong.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
You know, Al, you’re never going to get anywhere in life until you get a little self confidence.[/quote]
Excuse me - was that sarcasm? It’s hard for me to tell, since it’s neither funny, witty, nor true.
[quote]s3 wrote:
These posters probably know more history than me + you combined and then squared. I have most likely read some of the same articles, interent sites that you have, and so I know the ideas which you are a proponent of.[/quote]
Sorry, “most likely” doesn’t cut it. I’ve seen first hand what these people know, and the answer is jack shit. They seize upon a single errant term in a brilliant piece and proceed to lecture me about it’s historical connotations, when I made it clear from the start that I was fully aware of the minor historical inaccuracy associated with it.
[quote]s3 wrote:
Just take a chill pill my friend, carry your ideas with you, but learn both sides; the world it is, and the world you believe it should be. [/quote]
I’m fully aware of both sides. YOU aren’t, and neither is anybody else on this thread. You don’t know who neocons are, how they think, where they base their ideals from, and how they can be historically traced back to radical liberal movements at the start of the 20th century. Believe me, I’ve looked into this, and I know exactly what I’m dealing with. You want to talk about “both sides?” These idiots get their news exclusively from the United States Government and the MSM - they don’t have an OUNCE of knowledge about the “other side,” and exposing it to them is like trying to exorcise a demon. Give me a break. Save your plebeian advice for someone ignorant enough to need it - like 90% of the people on this thread, for instance.
[quote]Joe Daley wrote:
“In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today”
Good grief.
I’m sorry, Europe, more so the world was ‘dominated’ as you so put it, in 1914 by the colonial powers which were at the time: Britain and France. Germany was (if I remember correctly) a relatively new county, but was still the senior partner to the Austro-Hungarian empire.[/quote]
Britain isn’t a part of continental Europe, and therefore has little relevance to the discussion. France had lost it’s status as a leading power to the Germans and Austrians with it’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870s under Bismark, Napolean 3), which left it eager for revenge. Russia, which you failed to mention, was in economic and military turmoil after being bitterly defeated in the Russo-Japanese war (1905), and on the brink of revolution. The recently consolidated German empire was widely recognized as the foremost European superpower. The dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary, being Germany’s primary ally, was also in a favorable position as well, DESPITE internal strife that was COMONPLACE AMONG NEARLY ALL THE REMAINING MONARCHIES OF THE PERIOD. Together, this powerful alliance DID dominate most of Europe geographically, economically, and military.
So there you have it. Any further mention of the subject which doesn’t specifically address the points made above will be ignored - or conveniently steered back to the above paragraph.
Now would have been a great time for you to take your own advice, shut up, and get some education. But no, there’s one more ignorant post for me to address. Very well then, let’s get on with it.
[quote]Joe Daley wrote:
WWII was influenced more by US isolationism than aggression. The people didn’t want to be drawn into another war, as the problems in Europe were viewed as problems for the Europeans to deal with.[/quote]
This is true of the American side. However, to suggest that it influenced the second war is a disingenuous argument; the seeds for the second world war were planted after the first, and specifically, after American intervention in the first.
[quote]Joe Daley wrote:
The reason Hitler rose to power was largely due to the punitive damages assigned to them, in order to repay the costs of the First World War (These harsh conditions were demanded by the French, not the US).
[/quote]
Those punitive damages would never have occured if the U.S. hadn’t intervened to tip the balance of the war, and a cease fire had been reached between the Allied and Central powers. Where were you when Harry Browne illustrated this in his piece?
[quote]Joe Daley wrote:
WW2 started because the British and French eventually acted against the Germans after a long period of inaction - early aggression on the part of the allies could have perhaps stopped the conflict ever occurring.[/quote]
What are you talking about? WWII started when Hitler invaded Poland - the British and French DIDN’T do anything to prevent the buildup of Nazi Germany. This is widely cited. But nevertheless, it’s besides the point.
[quote]Joe Daley wrote:
The issue of 9/11 occurring due to US ‘imperialism’ or ‘aggression’ is idiotic. islam is in a perpetual state of war, that will not stop until we are either converted or conquered.
These people are determined to wipe us from the face of the earth, whether we obtain our oil from their countries or not.[/quote]
I already discussed this issue at length in my replies to JeffR and others. I suggest you look them up. In the mean time, I’ll link you another article by Harry Browne on this very topic:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24787
Since noone on this thread seems to be capable of reading a piece in it’s entirety, I’m here to give you the “money quotes”:
“I have been criticized for dwelling on what our government has done that led to the terrorist attacks. But if we don’t understand what provoked this, we can’t evaluate any response to it ? and we can expect that the faulty policies will continue and provoke more such attacks against Americans.”
"Foreign policy is the issue
Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism.
There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world who don’t believe in killing non-Muslims. In fact, Muslims have been killed in Arab terrorist attacks, just as non-Muslims have.
In an interview conducted by John Miller for Esquire in February 1999, Osama bin Laden said: “This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands or their honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves.”
The fact that bin Laden uses bad means to achieve his ends doesn’t excuse our own government’s mistakes ? nor does it justify our government doing the same things he does."
“Our government has bombed Libya, Iraq, the Sudan and Afghanistan, among other countries, supposedly to teach terrorists a lesson. But the bombings haven’t caused terrorists or foreign governments to change their policies.”
"Rule #4: The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war.
War is by definition an armed conflict between governments. No government has claimed responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks, and no government has been so accused."
“If not all the criminals are found and brought to trial, it doesn’t mean that bombing innocent people would have brought the criminals to justice.”
"Reverse positions
Rule #5: If you think you or America is entitled to something, reverse the positions and see how you’d react.
If Afghanistan doesn’t turn bin Laden over to our government, ask yourself whether you’d want your government to turn you over to the Iranian government if it accused you of a crime.
If you don’t think that American troops in almost a hundred foreign countries are a source of resentment, ask yourself how you’d feel if Chinese troops were stationed in America.
If you believe America has a right to bomb foreign countries for the actions of a few, ask yourself whether you’d want foreign governments to bomb your city because of something Bill Clinton did. (Haven’t we already established that the terrorists were wrong to act upon their hatred for American foreign policy by killing innocent civilians?)"
“Don’t assume that just because the government has the legal authority to do something that it will actually succeed. So be careful what you ask for.”
"What is the objective?
Rule #7: There’s no way to eliminate all terrorism in the world.
Terrorists have existed since biblical times. There will always be such criminals ? people who will kill innocent bystanders to make a social or political statement, or to bring pressure on a government to change its policies.
Saying that terrorism will be eradicated is not only unrealistic, it is asinine. It indicates that the speaker shouldn’t be trusted in anything else he says."
Respond to each of these points in detail, and then we can continue our discussion.
What Can We Do about Terrorism? ? Part II of III
Do We Choose Death or Peace?
by Harry Browne
October 15, 2001
“All that’s necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do the wrong thing.”
. . . Lawrence Block, The Evil Men Do
Americans have been sold a fantasy by their government and by the “experts” on television.
The fantasy is that our government will flex its muscles overseas, make demands, kill a lot of people, demonstrate that we don’t tolerate terrorism, “bring the terrorists to justice,” and end terrorism forever.
But for decades, our government has been flexing its muscles overseas, making demands, killing people, and teaching terrorists a lesson. And what did it achieve?
It brought about the deaths of 3,000 Americans on September 11.
Those policies by our government have brought us to where there now are only two choices for the future. And you may not like either one of them.
The Choice for War
Choice #1 is to bomb Afghanistan “back to the stone age,” and maybe Iraq, and maybe any other country our government accuses of harboring terrorists. (Except the U.S., of course, where many of the terrorists lived safely for several years.)
This choice won’t eliminate all the terrorists. It probably won’t eliminate any of them. But it will make the politicians feel good. And it will satisfy the understandable lust for vengeance that so many Americans feel right now.
But not only will foreigners die by the thousands, it will feed the desire for vengeance on the part of the terrorists ? and inspire other people to help them. The result? . . .
We will be attacked on planes, in subways, buildings, schools, sports arenas ? in any place innocent Americans can be cornered like lab rats.
Our economy will sink further and further downward as people become more and more afraid to lead normal lives.
We will see Americans die from bombs, from biological warfare, from assassinations, and from causes we can’t even imagine now.
Our government will react by escalating the violence still further. And that will cause the terrorists to escalate their violence. And with every escalation, more of our friends and relatives will die ? and more people around the world will come to hate America.
Choice #1 doesn’t lead to anything very pretty. It will be disastrous for America. But that’s where our politicians are taking us right now.
The Choice for Peace
Choice #2 is for our President to be a man and acknowledge to the world that our government has made some horrible mistakes in the past ? but that our policy is changing.
He must tell the world that our government will no longer impose its will on places like Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Colombia. He must say that we’re returning to the peaceful foreign policy that America followed for its first century ? until President McKinley took the country into the Spanish-American War and down the road to empire.
Americans are loved all over the world for what they’ve done ? producing low-cost food and medicines, great entertainment, and the kind of voluntary charity that only free and prosperous people can bestow.
At the same time, foreigners hate our government because it uses “foreign aid” and military muscle to impose its way upon the rest of the world.
Our politicians say that most of the world supports the American military campaign. But what they mean is that our government is bribing foreign governments to support the military campaign. Meanwhile, a recent Gallup poll revealed that individual human beings in 35 major countries oppose American military retaliation by better than 3 to 1.
If American leaders would call a halt to the violence, condemn the terrorist attack, and condemn the killing of innocent foreigners by previous U.S. administrations, there’s a very good chance the cycle of death and destruction could end immediately.
We’re at a Crossroads
Can I guarantee that Choice #2 will lead to peace? Of course not, but it is very likely to do so. And what terrorism remains will be relatively minor compared to the awful future we face now.
And I can assure you that Choice #1 will lead to the deaths of many more Americans ? most likely, tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of Americans, in ugly and tragic ways.
It’s very possible the terrorists who weren’t killed in the September 11 attacks will never be caught ? whether we pick Choice #1 or Choice #2. So let’s focus instead on assuring that such a thing never happens again.
But first we must recognize that the fantasy our government is peddling now ? of bringing peace by killing foreigners ? is just that: a fantasy.
We have only two choices ? death or peace. It’s unfortunate that it will take far more courage to choose peace.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/TerroristSolutionPart2.htm
What Can We Do about Terrorism? ? Part III of III
Preventing Future Terrorism
by Harry Browne
October 31, 2001
Government’s role shouldn’t be to police the world ? or even to win wars. Government’s role should be to keep us out of wars ? to protect us from foreign enemies, not create them.
In fact the main reason most people tolerate high taxes and invasions of our liberty is because they hope the government will protect them from domestic criminals and foreign problems. And yet, despite a $2 trillion budget, our government protects us from neither.
A libertarian foreign policy would rest on a simple principle:
We’re always ready to defend ourselves, but we threaten no one.
Such a foreign policy should have four elements.
- Non-Interference
Our government should never interfere in other countries’ disputes, never arm nor aid foreign governments, and never give terrorists a reason to pressure our government.
When the politicians drag us off to someone else’s war, they offer plenty of reasons. The reasons usually include: stopping the conflict from spreading, heading off the emergence of a new Hitler, protecting our allies, doing the moral thing, and ending violations of human rights.
But rarely do they come even close to achieving any of the goals.
Any American who wants to volunteer to fight for a foreign government or revolutionary movement, to negotiate its peace, or to send money to help it should be free to do so. (It is currently illegal for you to help a foreign government or revolutionary movement.) But our government should stay out of such battles.
- No Foreign Aid or Military Assistance
The Constitution grants our government no authority to use your money for the support of foreign governments.
Not only is it unconstitutional, it is unfair by almost any standard. As Fred Smith pointed out, foreign aid taxes poor people in rich countries for the benefit of rich people in poor countries.
Foreign aid originally was justified as a way of arming countries against Communist aggression. But Cuba, China, and Vietnam all became Communist after receiving American money and weapons.
And so much money and military hardware have been given to Israel’s enemies that it allows the politicians to say we have to give massive aid to Israel to keep it from being destroyed.
Every American should be free to send money or weapons to any government in the world. But you shouldn’t be taxed for the benefit of any foreign government.
- Security against Attack
How could the bad people of the world conquer America?
They’d have to pulverize American cities to the point that we submit to being occupied ? or they’d have to threaten to do that.
In 1983 Ronald Reagan made the most sensible military suggestion of the past 50 years ? that America should protect itself against missile attacks. Unfortunately, he gave the job to the Department of Defense ? which is really the Post Office in fatigues. And so 18 years later we’re no closer to being protected than we were in 1983.
We should rely as little as possible on politics and bureaucracy to achieve anything. The government should simply post a reward ? say, $25 billion ? to go to the first private company that produces a functioning, fool-proof missile defense. With such an offer, we’d probably have a missile defense within five years.
Will that make us perfectly secure? Of course not. Nothing will.
But it will make us far safer than we are today and eliminate a principal excuse for meddling in other countries’ affairs.
- Target the Aggressors, Not the Innocent
Even with a missile defense, suppose America truly were threatened by a foreign ruler.
A Libertarian President would target the aggressor himself. He wouldn’t order bombers to kill the aggressor’s innocent subjects.
He would warn the ruler that an actual attack would trigger the posting of a reward of, say, $100 million for the person who kills the ruler. Everyone would be eligible to collect the reward ? including the ruler’s guards and wives.
This response would spare both innocent foreigners and innocent Americans. Only those who try for the reward would be at risk. Americans wouldn’t be drafted to fight and die invading a foreign country ? nor taxed to pay for volunteers.
This isn’t a way to force dictators to change their spots or submit to U.S. dictation. It’s only a way to discourage a direct attack on America. If the dictator withdrew his threat, the U.S. would withdraw the reward.
With a libertarian foreign policy, it’s unlikely any foreign ruler would threaten us. So such a reward probably would never be posted. But if a foreign ruler were tempted to threaten us, the fear of assassination would be more of a deterrence than the threat to bomb his civilian subjects.
If you don’t believe assassination is a nice way to handle this, what’s the alternative? Would you rather kill thousands of innocent foreigners and innocent Americans?
Peace for All Time
When America can defend itself against missile attack, the politicians will lose their best excuse for butting into the affairs of other countries and making demands upon you.
And when our government no longer interferes in other countries with military adventures and foreign aid, foreign terrorists will have little reason to threaten your city.
If some foreign leader still tried to make trouble for America, we should target the leader for assassination, not target innocent civilians for bombing. But an American government that minded its own business and had a secure defense isn’t likely to need to resort to assassination.
The policies I’ve outlined are the only ones that will produce a strong national defense, instead of a strong national offense, and leave terrorists with no reason to attack us.
Once they’re in place, we must find a way to keep politicians away from loaded weapons forever.
Here’s a start ? a proposed constitutional amendment:
Section 1. The United States shall be at war only after a declaration of war, naming the specific enemy nations, is approved by the President and by a two-thirds vote of the eligible members in both houses of Congress.
Section 2. The only members of the House of Representatives and the Senate eligible to vote on a declaration of war are those who are between the ages of 18 and 35, or who have children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren between those ages.
Section 3. In the absence of a Congressional declaration of war, the President may deploy the military to repel an invasion of United States territory, but may not deploy troops or engage in hostilities outside the United States.
Section 4. The United States shall enter into no treaty with any nation or organization if such treaty could oblige the United States to be at war without a declaration of war by Congress, and the United States shall not be bound to engage in war by any action taken by any organization of which they are a member.
Section 5. Except in time of war, as specified in Sections 1 and 2, the United States will provide no weapons or other resources to foreign governments, will engage in no military action outside the borders of the United States, and shall deploy no military personnel or weapons outside the boundaries of the United States except that at any one time up to one thousand members of the military may be outside the United States for no longer than thirty days.
Section 6. Upon any violation of this article by the President, Congress shall institute impeachment proceedings within 14 days.
Sections 3 and 5 don’t preclude a missile defense or any other kind of defense of this nation. It requires only that the President wait before attacking a foreign nation until a declaration of war has been issued. Even if some incapacity prevents Congress from making a declaration quickly, America could still defend itself. It just couldn’t attack anyone else.
War is too dangerous an enterprise to leave in the hands of people who routinely lie in their own self-interest.
I welcome any suggestions for making the Amendment more precise.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/TerroristSolutionPart3.htm
Al Shades -
You are one copy and pasting SOB. SOB, jr. But SOB nonetheless.
When you actually get a job and start contributing to society (i.e. moving out of mommy and daddy’s house, buying your own food, paying your own rent, etc.), maybe you’re ramblings will have meaning to someone other than yourself.
Humility will get you a lot further than hubris. Hubris will get you your ass kicked, especially when you have nothing to back it up with.
Evidently mommy and daddy didn’t teach you the old ‘kids should be seen and not heard’ saying.