Little History... Dangerous Thing-Harry Browne

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

And concerning WWII and the United States government’s history of foreign intervention:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/worldwar2.htm

Absolutely golden. They just keep on coming. Why should I bother trying to explain the facts to a bunch of clueless chickenhawks when Harry Browne has already refuted anything and everything that you fools could possibly come up with?

=======================================

The Myths of World War II

by Harry Browne

March 25, 2002

A number of people have complained about my stand on the current War on Terrorism by citing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These events are recounted as evidence that sometimes the U.S. is attacked without justification and that sometimes innocent people must be killed for a greater good. Here is my reply to one such letter.

Dear Mr. ??:

Thank you for writing with your concerns.

The “Unprovoked Attack”

“The U.S. was minding its own business prior to December 7, 1941 but, we were still attacked by Japan.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. (meaning Franklin Roosevelt) was not minding its own business. FDR browbeat the Japanese for a year before Pearl Harbor (1941). He cut off all exports to Japan, froze Japanese assets in the U.S., and demanded that the Japanese get out of Manchuria.

The U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands had already agreed that all three nations would go to war against Japan if the Japanese entered Thailand ? which they did a week before Pearl Harbor. So the U.S. was already committed to war (without the knowledge of Congress or the American people) a week before Pearl Harbor.

As Secretary of War Stimson reported in his diaries, FDR then told his cabinet that they had to figure out how to get the Japanese to fire the first shot. Fortunately for them, the Japanese had already decided to bomb Pearl Harbor if the U.S. didn’t back down from its bullying.

I don’t call Roosevelt’s actions to be the U.S. minding its own business.

The Atomic Bomb

“The Japanese did not surrender until two nuclear bombs were detonated on their soil.”

That also is not the case. The Japanese had sued for surrender several times during the year before Hiroshima. The Japanese asked for only one condition ? that the Emperor be allowed to remain in place.

The U.S. refused because FDR had coined the ridiculous phrase “unconditional surrender” and was determined to stick to it. When the Japanese eventually surrendered without condition, the U.S. allowed the Emperor to remain in place anyway.

Almost every leading U.S. general and admiral was appalled by Truman’s dropping of the atomic bomb ? especially on two cities with no military significance whatsoever. You can read some of their comments by clicking here.

If terrorism is the act of killing innocent people to pressure a government to change its policies, what was the killing of over 100,000 innocent people ? supposedly to end a war, but a war that could have been ended months before?

Foreign Policy Is Simply Politics

How many Japanese and Americans died unnecessarily because of a megalomaniac in the White House ? who was conducting an aggressive foreign policy from 1939 onward without the knowledge of Congress or the American people?

Only when all his cabinet officers wrote their memoirs after the war did most of this become known ? and by then practically no one was interested in revisiting the causes of the war.

The same thing is happening today. The country is accepting the president’s version of events without question. What he’s doing makes no sense. But he has his own Pearl Harbor and so, like FDR, he’s unstoppable.

Appeasement?

“I don’t think talking or appeasing the terrorists will do anything but embolden them.”

I have no interest in appeasing anyone. I simply want the U.S. to stop bullying the world and creating enemies.

How Soon We Forget

“I will concede that we (the U.S.) stick our noses where it does not belong sometimes but like the Japanese, the terrorists have brought the fight to U.S. and it is time we showed them and the world what happens when you mess with the best.”

I don’t understand why so many Libertarians understood before September 11 how dangerous it was for the U.S. to be meddling in other people’s affairs ? but now suddenly it’s as though there’s absolutely no connection between a dangerous foreign policy and an aggressive act against the U.S.

And if foreign-policy meddling contributed to the events of September 11, what do you think is going to happen to us as a result of what President Bush is doing now? Shouldn’t we be trying to stop an even-greater disaster from occurring?

I want only to speak the truth so that, as events unfold, I hope that more and more people will come to realize what a terrible mistake is being made.

I appreciate your concerns. Few people have the faintest idea what went on in World War II or what went on before September 11. Our government has created a terrible mess that is dividing Americans ? even dividing Libertarians. But if it’s okay for people to spout jingoistic slogans without any knowledge of the facts, why is it wrong for someone to point out the obvious?

If I seem to be ignoring some historical event, I hope you’ll grant me the possibility that I know about it already, and that I actually know what I’m talking about ? even if it doesn’t conform to the one-liners in high school history books.

With best wishes,

Harry Browne

62

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Al Shades -

You are one copy and pasting SOB. SOB, jr. But SOB nonetheless.[/quote]

I spent 2 entire pages of this thread “in the trenches”, responding to every clueless moron who made an asinine remark. I’ve EARNED my stars and stripes. Now, it’s time to call in the reinforcements and get this show over with in a massive display of force designed to “shock and awe” the stupidity right out of this thread.

P.S. The rest of your post is an ad hominem attack on me based on information that is not at your disposal, and is thus complete and utter dogshit. Accordingly, I’ll ignore it.

63

An overview of the American wars in the 20th century, with emphasis on the specific question of, “Can America Bring Peace to the World?”

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PeaceToTheWorld.htm

Can America Bring Peace to the World?

by Harry Browne

October 5, 2004

I received this email yesterday:

I just finished a book The Pentagon’s New Map by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a strategist for the Navy and Defense Department, in which he talks about America’s role in the world, with concepts such as exporting rule-sets to the world, and dividing the world into “core” and “gap” countries.

Overall, what he presented challenged some of my assumptions about America’s role in the world. I was wondering if the same ends he describes, e.g. peace in our lifetime, could be achieved in more freedom-oriented ways that you have figured out.

I commend this book to your reading, and if you have time, I would be interested in your thoughts.

Unfortunately, because of the book I’m currently writing, I can’t spare any time for reading books that aren’t related to my current project.

However, from what the email-writer said, I would guess that Thomas Barnett has never bothered to examine the history of government programs ? and the sad record of failure after failure after failure. It isn’t just the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty or the War on Illiteracy that has failed to fulfill its promises. There hasn’t been a single American war in this century or the last in which the U.S. government actually achieved the results that were promised when it went to war.

Here’s a brief overview . . .

World War I

Objective: Bring democracy to all the countries of the world, self-determination for everyone, and a new world order that would end wars forever.

Result: American entry into the war prevented the two sides from negotiating a just end to the war. Instead, the Allies saw American entry as decisive, and so they rejected all peace overtures, fought the war to a bitter end, won the war, and imposed devastating, humiliating peace terms on Germany.

The result was an expansion of the British and French empires, subjecting millions more people worldwide to foreign rule. In addition, millions of Europeans were herded into foreign countries.

The U.S. entry into the European war prompted the Germans to finance and facilitate Lenin’s takeover of Russia ? creating the Soviet Union. And the oppressive peace terms imposed on the German people caused them to accept a thug named Adolf Hitler as their avenging angel. Thus U.S. entry into the war was responsible for what many call the two worst regimes in world history ? and the cause of 52 years of wars from 1939 to 1991.

World War II

Objective: Liberate Europe and China, and impose peace upon the world.

Result: Half of Europe was controlled by the Soviet Union, and China was quickly taken over by the Communists.

The Cold War

Objective: Free subjugated countries.

Result: In the process of “fighting” the Cold War, Iran’s democracy was overthrown with the help of the CIA ? leaving the Iranians subjugated by the oppressive Shah. That’s just one example, however. The U.S. government imposed or assisted dictators in Panama, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, China, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, and numerous countries in Africa.

The Korean War

Objective: Save South Korea from being taken over by an oppressive dictatorship.

Result: South Korea was left in the hands of an oppressive dictator, Syngman Rhee, who was just as oppressive as the communist North Korean dictator, Kim Il Sung.

The Vietnam War

Objective: Save Indochina from Communism, and prevent dominos from falling all over the world.

Result: Indochina was overrun by communists. (Surprisingly, the world didn’t come to an end.)

The Panamanian War

Objective: Stop Panama from being a conduit for drug-running.

Result: The Panamanian army was destroyed, leaving the country more vulnerable to drug-running.

The First Iraq War

Objective: Free Kuwait and stop Saddam Hussein from taking over the world. (Seriously, George H.W. Bush called him a modern-day Hitler, who had to be stopped the way Hitler should have been stopped at Munich.) At the end of the war, George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqis to overthrow Hussein.

Result: Kuwait is still run by a family dynasty that has no interest in democracy or in providing rights for the people. Apparently, Saddam Hussein wasn’t stopped from his diabolical plans of world domination ? at least according to George H.W. Bush’s son 11 years later. And Bush Sr. helped put down the postwar rebellion that would have overthrown Hussein.

The Bombing of Serbia
Objective: End the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo, perpetrated by the Serbs.

Result: Once the Serbs had been defeated, the Albanians ethnic-cleansed all the Serbs and gypsies out of Kosovo, and began terrorizing the Macedonians in Macedonia.

The War in Afghanistan

Objective: Stop the country from harboring terrorists, get rid of the Taliban, create human rights for women, and establish a free Afghanistan.

Result: Al-Qaeda operatives continue to function there, and Osama Bin Laden himself may be safely hiding in Afghanistan. Women are still treated as tools, rather than people. And as for freedom, the Afghan people are subjugated by brutal warlords, and the Taliban have been invited back in to help restore order.

The War in Iraq

Objective: “Disarm” Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people.

Result: Turns out that there was nothing to “disarm.” (Surprisingly, George Bush is still justifying the war by saying that “Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming.” Disarming what???) And over 10,000 Iraqi deaths later, Iraq is not only not liberated, it’s being occupied by a foreign power that’s being fought by a determined resistance movement.

Success?

So while Mr. Barnett’s objectives may be attractive, they are irrelevant ? since the odds against the U.S. government actually achieving them are at least 100 to 1.

The Pentagon will try to export rule-sets to other countries, with no success (rule-sets that, incidentally, don’t apply in the U.S.). If I understand the terms correctly, the “core” countries will be those whose rulers agree to do whatever the U.S. President tells them to do, and the “gap” countries will be those run by rulers who insist on making their own rules.

There is no way that America can make the entire world peaceful ? or, in fact, any part of the world except America itself.

Peace in our Time

We could lift the state of siege in America tomorrow morning if the U.S. would simply stop meddling in other countries’ affairs.

The supposed “hate America” feeling is really the fear that America is going to come into one’s country and throw its weight around ? as it has in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Libya, Colombia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia, East Timor, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Pakistan, the Congo, and dozens of other countries.

The question really is simple: Which do we want . . .

? To have our government make a futile effort to bring peace and democracy to the world ? in the process generating such hatred that we live the rest of our lives in a state of siege, with America becoming progressively more like the chaos that exists in Israel and the Palestinian territories?

Or

? Bring all the troops home, end all foreign aid to friends and foes alike, keep out of the affairs of other countries ? and restore the peace and liberty that America experienced throughout most of the 19th century?

You decide. But when you decide, remember that you’re choosing the inevitable consequences at the same time you choose the objective.

========

Wam, bam, thank you m’aam.

64

[quote]Al Shades wrote:

P.S. The rest of your post is an ad hominem attack on me based on information that is not at your disposal, and is thus complete and utter dogshit. Accordingly, I’ll ignore it. [/quote]

Had I ever actually entered your ‘debate’ it would have been ad hominem, I’m just making a comment on your writing style, and your obvious disconnect with anything remotely associated with reality.

I could give a shit whether you ignore me, or not. But I think it odd that you call attention to your ‘ignoring’. That kind of undermines your attempt to ignore when you tell me you are ignoring me. But that would just about match your “listen to me” pattern.

65

I’m the only person on this thread (with the possible exception of battlelust and the first person to reply) who is in touch with reality. Everyone else here is firmly in touch…with U.S. Government propaganda.

66

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
I’m the only person on this thread (with the possible exceptions of battlelust and the first person to reply) who is in touch with reality. Everyone else here is firmly in touch…with U.S. Government propaganda. [/quote]

Okay. You betcha. How many of the ‘Big Three’ actually have a job?

67

The answer to that question is completely irrelevant.

A hundred years from now or less, nobody is going to give a shit about you, your job, your family, your false gods and idols, your pets, your house, your trucks, your local shooting range, your competition trophies, or any of the other aspects of your present life which you so cherish.

I, on the other hand, cherish only two things: my own existence and my capacity for knowledge. Both of them are abstract and possibily infinite concepts.

Your continued insistence on a thread such as this to “go around the room and get ta’ know everybody,” in effect, reflects your peasant mentality.

P.S. I can speak for 2 out of the 3 in the affirmative.

68

I mean real jobs, kiddo - not bussing tables at the Sizzler.

I sure am glad you cherish your own existence. Somebody needs to.

By the way, where can I get a gun range, and a trophy? I’m missing a few things from your list, and I thought I’d start with a gun range. I think I would really be important if you knew someone that could hook me up with a gun range. That and a trophy. Do you have any trophies with, like, a bowler on top? I don’t want any of those crappy ‘you sucked but everyone gets one’ trophies. I want one that has my name on it.

So…that’s one gun range, and one bowler’s trophy with my name on it. Can you hook that up, sparky?

69

I am not sure if this idea is novel according to Al or any other forum member, but here goes…

THE WORLD (both in the past and present) IS A COMPLEX PLACE!!!

Everyone sees their own reality, and more importantly everyone sees what they want to or are trained to see. Therefore, history, relationships, and all forms of human interaction with human and non-human aspects of this world are unique. Trying to simplify history or see “what really happened” is an endless struggle for truth.

However, the truth is only what we can and choose to see. Thus, if you were a member of the Nazi party during WWII you may have thought the persecution of Jews was appropriate and that was the reality of the world that one lived in. Today, most people find the ideas espoused by the Nazi party as offensive, barbaric, or just wrong.

Anyways, I think the point is that trying to understand history, human nature, etc etc etc is worthwhile, but getting caught up in one viewpoint or one reality is dangerous. Furthermore, pointing fingers at specific groups, entities (i.e. states, countries, people) can be fun and fits nicely into the two party American system of politics. Blaming others is also a part of every person’s life. We have all done it. But for christ sake everyone in this world (Asian, White, Hispanic, Middle-Eastern, etc) are still human beings with human failings. Everyone has made mistakes, and history suggests this trend of human imperfection…

Finally, I find rabid political thinking dangerous. I mean what if all this energy was put to more productive uses? I am not sure what is more productive than being a liberal, a conservative, a radical whatever these titles truly mean can then be debated ad nauseum. Or maybe it is better to be a democrat or a republican and start competing at that level. I am a young guy myself, and I don’t pretend to know anything. The only thing I know is this. The world is a complex place and anyone who thinks that they have the magic solution, the magic pill (red or blue Neo…hahaha) needs to get a grip on reality; the reality of there being many realities, many perspectives, and while this realization doesn’t help simplify the world it may help us become more aware of our own humanity. Our own fallibility, and thus our own ignorance.

That is all…

70

Ah, spectacular. So we go from unprompted critiques of anarchism from right field, to history “lessons” that don’t teach anything, to making assumptions about where I work, and finally to outright nihilism intermingled with babbling, nonsensical democratic populism, all in a vain effort to avoid confronting defeat in the REAL topic of discussion on this thread. Too bad for the desperate neocons of this forum, I can see it all coming from a mile away. You won’t get off 2 inches off the ground before I shoot you back down. I’ve had far too much experience with you and your ilk.

Real men know when and how to admit defeat. One of the first things I wrote on this thread was that, “if you can’t fight me on the field of battle, don’t try to fight me at all.” I’ve dealt with all of your lies and bullshit so far, and I haven’t flinched once - do you really think you’re going to pull a fast one on me by changing the topic of conversation to some ambiguous and pointless philosophical debate?

Yeah, Slider, everybody’s got an opinion, much like everyone has an asshole. That doesn’t mean that everyone is RIGHT, and to arrive at such a conclusion can only be described as an egregious example of poor reasoning.

71

Baby Al- give it up already. You don’t know what the F you are talking about. Stalin, the isolationist? Tell that to the Finns and the Poles. You are progressing past comedy into tragedy. Do you know why they called it the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? The idea of permanent revolution? After Trotsky had the ice pick made one with his skull, Stalin kept right on going. Spain, Finnland, Poland, agents all over the place. Any apparent “isolationism” was to due tactical failure and reevaluation.

Don’t give me any of this you don’t know crap. I studied this stuff before you were craping in your diapers and even as a infant egoist/individualist had to have your mommy change them.

You act just like your average leftist getting their ass handed to them. You cull the evidence or fabricate it to fit your view, namely that a self-absorbed little boy ought to be able to do what he wants when he want, and that the most immediate impediment to that is the most evil thing in the world.

You ain’t all that kid, boy, son, and many a junior narcisist so very much like you has been snuffed out precisely because he and his compatriots were too busy proclaiming their moral purity and superiority to see what was right in front of them, namely that you have to deal with this messy world on its terms, not yours. Duh.

I can and will, if you persist, go on and correct your major, not minor as you concede, errors of fact. It’s fun, and the idiot insults of a over-egoed under-read 17 year old are music to my ears. Someone has to do it.

Bring it.

European American-like domination to central and eastern european domination to co-partnership to what new ‘fact’ indeed.

72

No matter how many derogatory names you call me or how much venom you manage to cram into a single one of your infantile posts, it doesn’t change the fact that you are thoroughly incapable of holding your own against me in a debate. So go on: hurl your insults and spit your venom - I’m not going anywhere, and neither are my steadfast principles, or the facts that I have espoused. Out of the entire five paragraphs in your last post, only ONE did absolutely anything to address my argument.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
Stalin, the isolationist? Tell that to the Finns and the Poles. You are progressing past comedy into tragedy. Do you know why they called it the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? The idea of permanent revolution? After Trotsky had the ice pick made one with his skull, Stalin kept right on going. Spain, Finnland, Poland, agents all over the place. Any apparent “isolationism” was to due tactical failure and reevaluation.[/quote]

Nice try, but the idea of permanent revolution was originated by Trotsky - that’s the very reason I brought the subject up on this thread to begin with. Since you obviously can’t connect the dots, the very same ideals of “permanent revolution” are being used today to justify the “War on Terrorism,” and it’s no coincidence, since the people who orchestrated this war are intellectual descendants of Trotsky.

Trotsky himself wrote an essay blaming Stalin for his failure to “spread the revolution”. Stalin consolidated his power in Eastern Europe and Asia, yes - much as the United States did in Latin America during the 19th century - but the fact remains that Stalin was a radical isolationist in comparison to Trotsky, who truly believed in taking the revolution “to the doors of the capitalist pigs.”

Here, have some information, because your brain is sorely lacking:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010303.html

“As many of the original neocons were ex-Trotskyists, or independent left-wing critics of Stalinism ? whose Russian colleagues were sent to the gulag, and whose leader met his end on Stalin’s orders ? their foreign policy monomania is best understood as Trotsky’s revenge. The founder of the Red Army had wanted to carry the struggle into Poland, and Germany, after the 1917 Revolution, and this later developed into a comprehensive critique of Stalin’s policy of ‘socialism in one country.’ Throughout the cold war era, Trotsky’s renegade followers called for ‘rolling back’ their old enemies, the Stalinists ? but even the implosion of the Soviet empire did not calm their crusading instincts.”

“The Trotskyists believed that the Revolution had gone off the rails, due not to the inherent brutality and immorality of the Bolshevik program, but because the Party didn’t have the revolutionary zeal to carry the struggle forward into Europe and beyond. They sneered at the Stalinist concept of “socialism in one country,” and correctly pointed to the Marxist classics, including Lenin, as proof that the Kremlin had betrayed the cause of true Communism, which they identified with a militant internationalism. Instead of sitting around liquidating Russian kulaks, Stalin, the Trots averred, should have gone on to liquidate all kulaks, everywhere”

Now I’m sure you’re going to write another five paragraphs of utter nonsense while not bothering to devote more than a few trivial sentences to the facts at hand. Why don’t you call me “Baby Al” a few more times? Maybe even a dozen? You take your originality to new heights with each new, moronic post you make. Complete ignoramus.

73

http://www.ceip.org/people/kagfaff.htm

http://www.socialistaction.org/news/200001/genesis.html

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25304

74

"Trotsky’s ghost wandering the White House

Influence on Bush aides: Bolshevik’s writings supported the idea of pre-emptive war"

http://www.majority.com/news/jeet1.html

“Lenin?s Logic
Bolshevik thinking on Iraq.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200406021436.asp

===================================
Leon Trotsky?s
Revolution Betrayed

What is the Soviet Union and where is it going?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm

Have fun responding to THAT, dickhead.

75

maybe you should start charging for the entertainment you’re giving us, huh?
I’m not really sure I appreciate seeing you actually call a fellow T-Man “dickhead” though.
I’m a little surprised the mods let that one through, given how they’re going for a new tone lately and all.

76

Woops, I missed one post of yours on the second page. Time to shut it down without further delay.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
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.[/quote]

No, what he said was THIS:

“In 1914 Austria dominated Europe the way the U.S. dominates the world today. The Austrian Empire included what is now Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, as well as parts of Italy and Romania.”

You see, it makes a difference when you actually quote what was written, rather than pulling it out of your ass.

From the second sentence of that paragraph, it is CLEAR that the “domination” he referred to was in the geo-political domain. This is what I have been trying to pound through your skull since the first time it was brought up on this thread. And the subtle irony is that I never even saw the second sentence until now. Thus, I independantly reached the same conclusion of Mr. Browne’s thinking as he articulated in the article! Had I noticed the second sentence, I would have cited it immediately.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
When it is pointed out that this is widely regarded as anything but fact, you retreat to the following:[/quote]

There would have been nothing to “retreat” from - even if the you had a valid point (which you didn’t) - since Austria-Hungary’s “domination,” whether real or imagined, was NOT the central theme of the article, as I pointed out many times.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
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.
[/quote]

To refer to the Austrian-German alliance as a “blank check” on behalf of the Austrians is an incredibly ignorant view in light of the multitude of alliances enveloping every single European power at the time. One of Bismarck’s chief goals in unifying the German state had been to avoid the trap of being surrounded on all sides by hostile nations - thus prompting his diplomatic overtures towards both the Austrians and the Russians. This simple bit of historical fact is, by itself, enough to completely refute your ridiculous assertion. The Germans needed Austria-Hungary just as badly, if not more-so, than the reverse.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
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.[/quote]

Great, now you’re disputing geographical boundaries. I guess the “Central Powers” were incorrectly named, according to you.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
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.[/quote]

American was never under direct threat of invasion from the Central Powers. American shipping was targetted as a direct result of the foreign aid that was being provided to Britain by the United States. Once again, Harry Browne’s central theme of not meddling in the affairs of other countries applies. Were you expecting that to be a minor historical footnote? The Germans certainly didn’t think that way. You think they WANTED America to become involved in the war? No, there had to be a damn good reason for their actions.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Stop babbling this nonsense already - we already determined that the only “domination” to speak of was in the geo-political realm.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
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.[/quote]

Too bad I just successfully defended his statement (using his own wording as backup) and refuted all of the arguments you presented.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
“Coercion doesn’t produce results.” Yes, it does, just not the ones that you want. Why else would you be bitching so much?[/quote]

Coercion never produces the results promised for it by the people who utilize it to alter the state of the world. This is a fact of life. If you want to sit in your sandbox and play with words, then go ahead and do so. Until then, I’ll consider you unable issue a proper response to the statement.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
I, Schrauper, am “a fan of coercion and big government.” Here’s your first homework assignment kid- find my posts that prove your point.[/quote]

You’re looking at one of them. Homework completed, go back to middle school.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
“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.[/quote]

You’re the one who started handing out insults like candy on this thread, and I have subsequently refuted every point you’ve tried to make, so anything you say about my “self-righteousness” is invalid.

[quote]schrauper wrote:
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.[/quote]

I didn’t expect anything but a laugh and a bit of entertainment, both of which have been greatly surpassed. I’m not here to change anybody, but rather, to ridicule and intellectually annihilate simpletons who cannot grasp simple truths.

77

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
but rather, to ridicule and intellectually annihilate simpletons who cannot grasp simple truthes.[/quote]

kiddo, if you were really all that smart you’d know when to shut your cake hole.
If you were really smarter than all the rest of us, you’d also be able to not fling insults and continually mention how much smarter you are than the rest of us.

78

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Al Shades wrote:
but rather, to ridicule and intellectually annihilate simpletons who cannot grasp simple truthes.

kiddo, if you were really all that smart you’d know when to shut your cake hole.
If you were really smarter than all the rest of us, you’d also be able to not fling insults and continually mention how much smarter you are than the rest of us.
[/quote]

Joe

He isn’t.

At first he was kind of interesting but now he is starting to sound like an annoying chick. Just can’t shut up and always has to get the last word in.
Especially when he knows he is wrong.

79

Al Shades Stated: “I, on the other hand, cherish only two things: my own existence and my capacity for knowledge. Both of them are abstract and possibily infinite concepts.”

RSU used almost those exact words before he vanished from the T-Nation planet!

80

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
I’m sure it can can, as soon as you(thunderbolt23) name a single instance in the 20th century in which the United States was attacked by another nation, unprovoked.
[/quote]

I’m not thunderbolt, but…December 12, 1937, the USS Panay, while docked in the Yangtze River, was bombed by 2 flights of Mitzubishi warplanes next to 3 Standard Oil tankers. Just so you know.