Submitted w/o comment

Attack Proves Bigger is Not Better
by Paul Clark
Before any response to the World Trade Center attack is made there is one question which must be asked. Will it make Americans safer?
Regrettably, initial responses fail to adequately analyze why these attacks took place, and risk a response which will not make the world a safer place, but only lead to more of the same. In fact, US response threatens to be the same as for virtually every failed government program: keep pursuing the exact same failed program, but double its budget.
In the wake of the horrible attack, too many people are using words to describe the attacks such as "random," and "unprovoked." While it is easy to understand why people want to characterize them as such, the attacks were anything but random. The Pentagon and Trade Center were large high-profile targets, symbols and instruments of American global hegemony.
Nothing can justify the slaughter of innocent civilians (by either side), but calling the attacks "unprovoked" tends to lessen our understanding of why these attacks probably took place. In his address President Bush declared that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." With respect, however, it is almost certainly NOT the case, that the Pentagon was attacked because there is too much freedom in the United States.
Many have been comparing the attacks to the "unprovoked attack" on Pearl Harbor, but in the conflict with Japan was far from "unprovoked," in that the US and Japan had been in conflict in the Pacific for years.
So too with the recent attacks in New York. While they were not justifiable, they were far from unprovoked (two terms people tend to confuse). If the attacks did involve Osama Bin Laden or some of his people, did not the United States launch a missile attack against him in an attempt to kill him? Isn’t that a provocation? Might that not have emboldened him to take even more aggressive action? Did the retaliatory missile attacks on Afghanistan and the civilian drug plant in Sudan make Americans more safe or less safe?
Will lashing out militarily, now, make the US safer or only escalate the circle of violence? I am not advocating pacificism but "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones," and the US is a glass society which has very little to gain and very much to lose by escalating the rock throwing.
I would posit that for years now the federal government has been pursuing a "War on Terrorism," but that it has been no more successful than its "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty." The result of each of these wars has been an expansion of government power, restriction of liberty and very little progress to show for it.
to be cont...

...cont
The Twentieth Century was characterized by the attitude "bigger is better." Countries and individuals were in constant competition to build bigger buildings, bigger bridges, bigger ships, bigger schools, bigger cities and ever bigger government to pay for them and to protect us. But those bigger buildings and bigger schools have simply become targets for criminals all types, and the bigger government has proved impotent to protect us.
In recent years the power and budget of the FBI – particularly with hundreds of new overseas offices – has ballooned. All that new money and power was supposed to protect us, but it clearly failed. For all of the US government’s money, power and technology, it was defeated by a small group of men whose weapons appear to have been no more sophisticated than a razor blade.
Before the US puts more money into bigger militaries, bigger security agencies and bigger body counts, we had better take a step back and consider just what US policies may have provoked these attacks.
The United States is an imperial power, with soldiers or security personnel in virtually every country on earth. Through diplomatic, economic and military power the United States regularly interferes in the internal affairs of countries around the world. Far too many people equate military and political hegemony with greatness.
Nearly two thousand years ago St. Augustine in criticizing those who wished to try to maintain the Roman Empire wrote:
What reason, what prudence is there in wishing to glory and greatness and extent of empire? ... Let us suppose the case of two men ... one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; the other very rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears, always pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, never secure, always uneasy. . . . But the other man of moderate wealth is content with small and compact estate, most dear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindred neighbors and friends . . . so in two families, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquility holds good.
Augustine’s words remain as true today as in 400 AD. What good is it to be an imperial power when the result is less freedom, higher taxes and less security? Probably the single greatest thing that can be done to prevent future attacks is for the United States to abandon interventionism and mind its own business.
Of course, I do not expect anyone in power to heed these words, and fully expect that public opinion will equate disengagement with letting the terrorists win. Unfortunately public opinion often places "winning" or "saving face" over saving lives. Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen on "Good Morning America" the day after the attack even said use of nuclear weapons might be justifiable in retaliation; and undoubtedly most Americans would see nothing immoral in the US incinerating thousands of helpless civilians if their government supported the attacks.
I can only hope and pray that those of us whose first allegiance and citizenship is to the City of God do not fall into the jingo-ism and bloodlust that often characterizes the City of Man after such an attack; and that we never forget that "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
Paul Clark ([email protected]) is Director of Coalition for Local Sovereignty (www.localsov.com), a veteran of the Gulf War and also worked with the mujahadin in Afghanistan.
September 15, 2001
Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com

"Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen on "Good Morning America" the day after the attack even said use of nuclear weapons might be justifiable in retaliation; and undoubtedly most Americans would see nothing immoral in the US incinerating thousands of helpless civilians if their government supported the attacks."

Golly Gee Mr Paul, wasn't incinerating thousands of helpless civilians what they did to us?  Did I miss something?  Isn't that what we did in World War 2 when we bombed the cities of Germany and Japan into rubble?

Duh goes here.

This is exactly the mindset I have been talking about.  I do wonder if this country has the will needed to do the level of killing necessary to roll back this threat.

"Of course, I do not expect anyone in power to heed these words"

I certainly hope not!
 

Nuke or be nuked? I'm still trying to make sense of it all. I don't know whether to agree with him or not. Will paving Afghanistan into a glass parking lot stop terrorism? How many more countries will we have to do this to until the terrorists stop? Should we be crashing airliners into Kabul?




From what we saw in Bill Clinton's Sky War Against Serbia, the American public couldn't give a rat's ass about civilians getting roasted to a crisp on the other side.

BUT- what will happen when the body bags of our own start coming home, big-time?

And how about more body bags and crushed skyscrapers full of people here in the USA?

How strong will people's resolves be then?

It's easy to go out and wave a bunch of flags and light a candle to show patriotism, but WHERE the hell were these sentiments September TENTH?

Platform,
I got the feeling from the article that he was against indiscriminate killing of civilians no matter what war or time frame.  Whether or not he says this in this particular article.

No offence to you big guy but I kinda think he is right.  I hope that we can all express ideas freely without too much personal hostility.
btw, I am sure you can contact him via e-mail, he lists his address after the article.
rDAm

If it was up to people like Paul Clark and Lew Rockwell, the United States wouldn't have even gotten involved in WW2.  And there were people just like him that opposed our involvement fighting the Nazis in WW2.  They were taken just as seriously then as they are now...which is to say that, thank God, no one took them seriously.

Propaganda is what this is, you are in league with mass murderers.

Quote from the article -

"Many have been comparing the attacks to the 'unprovoked attack' on Pearl Harbor, but in the conflict with Japan was far from 'unprovoked,' in that the US and Japan had been in conflict in the Pacific for years."

Yes, indeed, the United States blatant refusal to sell oil and scrap metals to Japan for use in the latter's genocidal war on Mainline China and in seizing Manchuria, was basically the same as Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, according to the author!

The United States could and can, lawfully, sell its products to whomsoever it desires! If the United States determines that it will not sell its products to another nation, irrespective of its motive, it may do so. Certainly Japan's conduct from about 1934 on, was contemptible, evil, and atrocious!

Would YOU have supported selling gas to the guys who raped Nanking?  Well, then do YOU think that Pearl Harbor was the appropriate response by Japan?

Thank God, this guy's not in charge of our military response!

Eric The(GotAnyMoreArticlesByPinheadsForUs?)Hun[>]:)]

Lo Seinto Eric (I apologize but my Spanish is rusty, I am sure someone will correct me).  I only have articles for pinheads! [:)]

It is too bad your memory has faded.  I suppose the British rape of China (and a whole lotta other places), the Boxer Rebellion, the Opium Wars and various assorted other atrocities perpetrated by the west remain in the collective memory of many in China.  Why did the United States in all of its wisdom not embargo England, the Dutch, the French and all of the others guilty of "Empire"?  Just a question, you don't have to answer I know already..."Empire" is OK only for the "Round Eye".
With a memory like yours I thank G_d YOU aren't in charge of our military response!
rDAm

The analogy with Japan is an interesting one.  If we withdrew from the region, one of the local "big boys" would undoubtedly take over the gulf states.  That country would then have us by the balls, as we had the Japanese.  Instead of the moderate price of propping up the local regimes, we would then be "provoked" into declaring war to get the oil we need.

Of course, the cost of propping up the local regimes has not turned out to be moderate at all.

Who are you talking to?  Paul Clark?  I assume he is to be arrested, tried and convicted for having unpopular ideas?  I don't recall the first amendment being voided, do you?  Butthead did you and Rik run out of unpopular books to burn?
rDAm

Post from imposter -

The Japanese were able to buy oil and scrap metal from anyone they desired, except the United States! Sorry, but at this point in American history we were beginning to finally understand that just because we were protected by two very large oceans, didn't mean that we were invulnerable! We simply refused to provide material to a nation we had decided had engaged in atrocities.

Post from Invictus -

Yeah, I should have expected that might be the case! [:D]

If you're referring to the time period when the British, Dutch, and French were actually carrying on their 'rape' of Asia, it's simply because there was nothing that those countries required from the United States, that we could have successfully embargoed!  What items of export do YOU believe the United States could have likely embargoed from these nations, during that time period?

So I am also relieved that you are not in charge of American import and export policies, with your lack of knowledge, as well! [:D]

Wow! What a response that is! You've certainly hit close to the mark with that zinger! Yeah, right!

Eric The(Countering)Hun[>]:)]

Please Eric,  please rethink the Opium Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, these were just as atrocious as the Japanese crimes against the Chinese.  Otherwise this would be denial.



Hey alls fair....Si? [;D]



Well to be honest a lot of the mineral wealth they had (the Brits that is) came from Manchuria(by way of exploitative Empire), so you are correct, closing of our exports [i]may[/i] have had little effect, but by the same token, you mentioned the Japanese could buy oil from anyone they wanted.  This is a bit dishonest (no offence) as the oil suppliers were mostly us and the Europeans, the Pacific Empire rivals.  Oddly enough they never could supply their demand, I wonder why? (that's rhetorical)
Lets also be honest, lets say that during the wild and wooly days of the Europeans having their way with the world, we decided that we would shut off all trade with *AND* freeze the assets of say England or the Dutch?  I am sorry but that would be tantamount to an act of war.  In my opinion at least.  Hey I don't condone a damn thing the Japanese did, but knowing how FDR besmirched, needled and belittled them at every opportunity I understand.  I have nothing but contempt for those that initiate violence against humanity.



Zinger?  Stop it Eric you are slaying me!  I honestly thought you would enjoy it more than you did.  [:\]



rD(AtLeastWeAreBeingCivil)Am [}:D]

edited 'cuz I can't quote straight or conjure smilies correctly!

Excellent Article! Invictus- You a big fan of LewRockwell.com? I know I am! I just wish more people could understand where we are coming from. I do have to commend EricTheHun for being civil, unlike most interventionists.

Who Woulda Thunk It???  Yes I believe than Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Suprynowicz (spelling?) are among the finest of Americans.  Too bad those that live by the creed of the founders get raked across the coals by the "War Criminals Waiting To Happen."  What part of PA are you from?  I have been looking for a chance to go to a shooting range.  It isn't too much fun shooting from a moving vehicle, unless you have the HoMeBoY nYtE SiTeS for your "forty".[:D]

Throw me an e-mail...if you get a message saying my mailbox is full, it's 'cuz I haven't cleared out the spam and hatemail from it...just try again in a day or so.

rDAm

[b]Just as atrocious?  Are you certain that you want to stand by THAT statement, that the Opium Wars of 1840-1842 were 'just as atrocious' as the activities of the Imperial Japanese Army in China 1934 - 1945?[/b]

How many Chinese do YOU figure were killed in either the fighting during the Opium Wars or The Boxer Rebellion in 1900?  And regarding the Boxer Rebellion, were we not invited in by the lawful rulers of China at the time?

In what year did we 'freeze' the assets of the Japanese in this Country?  Hmmmm?

Eric The(CondemnedToAlwaysRemember)Hun[>]:)]

I personally believe that the pacifist/isolationist are still looking for the America of the 19th century.  During the times of the Opium wars and the Boxer rebellion, America was a much more isolationist country.  How can you condemn America for things it didn't do when the country was following a policy that you are now defending?  America was more like you want it to be now, so we did not get involved to stop atrocities around the world.  

After WWII America realized that our isolationism nearly cost us the war.  By being isolationist, we allowed our enemies to operate unopposed.  We also realized that if we didn't get involved, Stalin would roll over Europe and finish the job that the Nazi's started.

During the cold war most of our actions were simply following our foreign policy of containment.  We would try to counter Soviet expansion every where that it occurred.   All the wars we fought during the cold war were overtly or covertly stemming from this policy of containment.  

After the cold war, our involvement in Haiti/Somaili/Kosovo were not in the interest of an American Hegemony as the article suggests, but to help people.  The attempts were misguided in my opinion and things got out of hand in Somalia/Kosovo, but we were trying to do what was right.  I am not particularly proud of those efforts, but I understand why they were done.  

Kuwait is a different story, there we had national interest at stake.  Of course if we had done nothing then we would have had a much bigger problem now.  Saddam Hussein would probably control  a large percentage of the worlds oil supply and would use his new influence to move the more moderate Arab nations to attack Israel.   I would even think that a pacifist couldn't be ignorant of the designs that Saddam Hussein has for Israel.

I personally saw this confrontation as inevitable, but I didn't think it would take center stage in this terrible manner.  If you look at Islamic fundamentalism and their culture and compare it to Western capitalism, then they are nearly diametrically opposed.  I don't think one can exist with the other.  At least not in this world of global travel/communication.  In my unarabic opinion, the Islamic fundamentalist rightly see western capitalism dominating their culture in the future decades and have decided to lash out to protect themselves.  I don't think they can win.  This war will accelerate their destruction.

Magic, you really have me backwards.  I am not condemning the policy to "Not" Embargo the Europeans, I am condemning the embargoing and needling of the Japanese to the extent we did, and suffered for.  We weren't that opposed the intervention in the affairs of other countries even back then.  We (figuratively) were trying to exploit what we could from a country that was wracked from internal strife, and the bondage of Euro/Americans.  We knew what we were doing, just trying to keep the Japanese from getting a "cut" from the sleeping giant.  It bit us in the ass, as usual.


cont...

edit to correct the quote

...inued



You are certainly entitled your own opinions, but to say the least they are about the opposite of mine.  All I ask is you read a lot of history from as many angles as you can, do your research and form your own dynamic, educated opinions.  I suggest [url]www.lewrockwell.com[/url] for starters since you seem to have the opposite view already.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of froot-loops in the middle east (on all sides) that I wouldn't trust with a sharp stick but there are just too many Christians living is Muslim countries to make me think they are out to kill all of us.  To be honest they seem to have the biggest problem with atheists if you ask me.  They have little problem with a genuine believer in G_d, or Jesus, who is holy to them as well, those who behave amorally are another matter.
rDAm

Tons of Chinese patriots were killed in the wars with the US/Europe.  If you are meaning to compare actual body counts I am sure that the Japanese killed far more.  To argue scale is a bit silly to me.  Who is more evil, Kaczinski, or Manson?  To me they are equal.  Hitler or Stalin? Equal to me.  Yes Manson and Stalin are responsible for many times more death than their counterpart, but at least in my eyes they are all going to end up in the same place yes?  Feel free to disagree. (like I'm gonna stop you [:)])  Besides we were cordially invited to come and visit England and France and we should have *DECLINED* there too.  My thoughts, they screwed themselves they can unscrew themselves.  No need for American boys to die.  A drowning rat doesn't try very hard to swim if he expects to be rescued.



July 26: Roosevelt freezes all Japanese assets in the U.S., levies embargo on Japan
That is 1941, not '42.  The needling and other interference started in the '30's if I am not mistaken.
Last straw mebbee?
This is amazing, we have disagreed how many posts in a row now, sans civil disorder [;D]
rD(HeyIamCondemnedTooYouKnow,CondemnedToUnderstand)Am[}:D]

Never burned any books I didn't own...only a congenital moron such as yourself would equate opining that someone is being treasonous with burning books. Shutting up the opposing view is a tactic of YOUR favorite website, ASSWeb, not any of mine.

You have to take the things done in context of the times.  You also have to realize that Japan joined the Axis powers in 1940 NOT 1942.  The United States had [b]ALREADY[/b] frozen the assets of German and Italians.   The oil embargo you refer to was not just against Japan, but against "Aggressor states" or Axis power states.

Maybe you need to read up on your history too.

Technically speaking...September 27, 1939: Japan joins the Axis by signing the Tripartite Pact.

You know I have tried, really I have, what I am trying to get across,(I must be doing a poor job of it) is that we need not take sides in crap like this.  If we sell oil to any of the belligerents, the Brits/French then sell it to the Japanese/Germans to do otherwise paints a bullseye on our fat ass!  If we freeze the assets of Germany,Italy,whoever else, why not freeze other sides as well, or *NEITHER SIDE*.  [b]Taking one side in a fight (that was NOT ours) has this annoying feature of drawing fire from the other![/b]  You will find this a recurring theme throughout the ages.

I politely asked you to do some additional research from sources you clearly have not investigated and this is the crap I get from you?  Magic, my history is just fine, most people don't like my conclusions or sources that I will give merit to, usually because they are not in alignment with there own pet theories, NOT because I am unaware of the world as it is today or how it got this way.  I will bet a donut that even Eric, with whom I have disagreed with up and down this thread, will tell you I know enough about history to not have my knowledge called to question.  I doubt he likes my conclusions, or grammar for that matter, but I have a feeling he doesn't think I am a historical idiot. (Don't make a liar out of me Eric).  I apologize if you take this as an insult I am not perfect but I swear I was trying to play nice!
Well somebody (that's me) needs a nap!  I will bicker some other day.
rDAm

I didn't understand your position because I found it unfathomable.  Now that I understand, I realize that I had given you a little more credit than you actually deserve. [pissed]

Post from Invictus -

But, Sir, this quite firmly limits OUR freedom to do as we jolly damn well have a right to do as a sovereign nation! We should be able to pick and choose who we favor and who we dislike with as much impunity as we desire!

That we suffer retaliation from those countries we don't particularly favor, is not surprising, but by the same token it's not justifiable or forgivable either!

Maybe Japan should have put more effort in crafting off-shore drilling rigs and securing oil drilling rights from its neighbors, and less time building first class battleships that sat out the war in the Inland Sea!

Silly to you maybe, but not to me! BTW I can't imagine why you included the US with the Europeans when discussing Chinese uprisings!

We always have these wild-eyed ideas that the Inquisition was the worst inhumanity, the Crusades were the worst inhumanity, now the Opium Wars (which, excuse me, but I do believe the Chinese brought onto themselves, just as dopey Americans have brought the 'War on Drugs' to our country).

But when the numbers of, say, the Inquisition are actually considered, it is amazing just how inconsequential the number of actual killings were! Sure if YOU died it was a bummer! But it also coincided with and gave impetus to 'the age of discovery', as well!  Sorta the silver lining in an otherwise dark cloud.

Disease and pestilence took a far greater toll on the Europeans and probably influenced their lives a great deal more than anything else!

Periodic flooding on the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers, as well as earthquakes, probably cost the Chinese more in lost citizens and treasure than anything the Europeans did!  That these same Europeans built the dams and floodways to reduce the death and destruction is seldom, if ever, mentioned!

And Yes, I will not deny your grasp of history, although you take totally different lessons than I do from the same set of facts!

Eric The(There,AreYouSatisfied?Hmmmm?)Hun[>]:)]  

Yess I guess.  Well, no use arguing over any more minutia, we probably both understand each other, just not in total agreement.

rD(IGuessIOweSomeoneADonut)Am

We are still the greatest military force this planet has ever known.  We can and will win this fight.  

Back to this again I see.

Let’s be pragmatic and try to live in the real, present day world for a few moments.

The fact of the matter is nations have interests and operate in a fashion they feel is in their best interests. This is a given. Every nation operates this way.

Trade is global, if one nation has something another needs, they try to strike a deal that suits the interests of both parties.

For the US, we need cheap oil to feed industry and automobiles. The Arabs have it, so we strike a deal. We invest in those nations, they invest in our nation, and everything is peachy keen.

The problem is there is a small faction of the Arab world that wants us out of the Middle East. They do not want Middle Eastern nations to do business with us because they feel the wealth generated by this commerce is a corrupting force, instilling Western values and sensibilities into their people. The fear is Western values may eventually result in a democratic mind-set, which is the true threat to Islamic fundamentalism and extremism. So, although they mouth-off about the Great Satan, sin, etc., the true agenda is one of political control, not one of religion or morality.

So, what do they do? They terrorize the Arab nations, the West, as for the past two decades or so, the US. They want us out of the Middle East and will do whatever it takes to do it.

Sure, we have stuck our nose where it doesn’t belong from time to time, but this does not make us imperial, at least not in the classic sense of the word.  We are not interested in taking over nations, land, and putting people in bondage (although in some cases the latter was the ultimate result of our policies – Iran and the “Banana Republics” come to mind). In any case, if we were truly imperial, we would own the Middle East, as the British did early in the last century. This is why the author’s argument is a fallacy – his definition of imperialism is invalid. In fact, the one time we overtly tried to be imperial was during the Spanish-American War (think Philippines), and of course, it was an utter failure and we hopefully learned our lesson. No, we are interested in commerce, not land grabs.

So, what do we do? Well, as long as we need oil from the Middle East, it is in our best interests to stay involved in that region. In the mean time, we should concentrate on exterminating terrorists, drying up their money supply, and presenting ourselves in such a way as to gain the support of moderate Arabs.

The fundamentalists and extremists will never be happy -- we will never gain their support. If their desire is to die for their beliefs, it’s in our best interests to make their endeavor a reality.

Actually, they could not get oil from anywhere else.  The other potential sellers were controlled by the British or allied governments in exile.  That was their only potential source.

Not that I am saying we were wrong to stick it to the Japanese.  Their intervention in China was dead wrong and we had every right to refuse to sell to them.  They had the choice of (1) backing down, (2) obtaining a source of oil by assault, or (3) cease being a modern economy.  I can understand wanting to avoid choice number 3, but 1 was a better choice, especially in light of the fact that they had no chance to win that war and quite of few of their top brass knew it.  Also, they could have attacked the Dutch possessions in the Pacific (where the oil they needed was located) and the British, without attacking the US.  I am not sure we would have declared war, and they would probably have been able to clean house in Asia and maybe India.  I guess the Japanese were too afraid that we would intervene, and their empire could not survive with American bases in the Phillipines.

re: unprovoked vs. justifiable

Our Federal gov't foreign meddlinging has just as great a potential to anger others as our Federal gov'ts domestic meddling has the potential to anger us. Loss of freedoms caused by our Federal gov't is not really any different based on the locale of the person losing their freedoms.

The difference?? We happen to believe that there is NO justification for killing innocents in order to get our gov'ts attention.

These foreign powers do not.

Oh, one other difference - while I share the opinion that America is STILL the greatest nation the world has ever known, some of us are completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that our gov't may be doing something wrong re: its foreign policy. Which is odd, given our general consensus that our own gov't is QUITE capable of evil in removing OUR freedoms thru its domestic policy.