Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/4/2001 5:07:08 AM EDT
Most folks would have the decency to 'lie low' with their BS about the reasons for the Attack on America of 9-11-2001, but not Harry Browne! Even as our young men and women assemble on foreign plains to avenge a savage attack on our homeland, Browne is compelled to quote from a Bin Laden interview by Esquire Magazine in 1999: "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." Well, Mr. Browne, our government has not planned to purposefully kill civilians anywhere in the world in response to Bin Laden's attacks on OUR civilians, so WTF are you talking about? If you can bring yourself to read anything further by this 'summer soldier and sunshine patriot' go to this site and see 'What Can We Do About Terrorism - Part 1' at: [url]http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24787[/url] Eric The(SoIsTHISTheNewFaceOfLibertarinism?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 7:29:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 8:45:43 AM EDT
I read that article twice...I can't find anything I completely disagree with. I want revenge too...but is it gonna help? I don't think he is out of line, his opinion is just unpopular. Just because his views are unpopular does not mean he is wrong.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 9:04:07 AM EDT
Revenge is nice, but I thought that the overall objective was to destroy the terrorist network(s). By doing so, will we not have accomplished something more than revenge?
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 9:11:49 AM EDT
I am sure if Harry Browne were to change his party affiliation to REPUBLICAN the GOP sheeple would heartily endorse his comments. I couldn't find anything in the article I don't agree with.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 9:20:51 AM EDT
[sleep] More BS from Eric(theUninformedDeadHorseBeater)theHun to slam Libertarians. While I don't like HB, and don't agree with HB, your post seems crafted to slam Libertarians in general, and unfairly categorize them as unpatriotic Osama-yo-mama supporters. So [-!-] you. I think you hate Harry Browne just because he advocates cutting foreign aid to Israel. And Japan, and Europe, and the UN, and....... GOOD!
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 9:30:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Most folks would have the decency to 'lie low' with their BS about the reasons for the Attack on America of 9-11-2001, but not Harry Browne!
View Quote
Perhaps this is just the time we [b]should[/b] be evaluating the reasons for the attack. Not only do we need to strike back hard against these terrorists and eliminate their existence, but we need to identify and eliminate the [i]reasons[/i] for their existence. Please understand the difference between causation and justification. These attacks were not at all justified, but there are reasons behind them and until we address those, we will forever be attacked. Just my $.02
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 9:37:42 AM EDT
I am a Patriot in the sense of Patrick Henry...but: 1. Why were the BATF and FBI out shooting people at WACO and Ruby Ridge and not looking for the real terrorists? 2. We did kill several thousand innocent civilians in Serbia in Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky War.... " Wag the Dog" 3. Why has the Federal govenment basically had 2 purposes during the last 20 years...to take away our rights and to take away our money? Seen anyBE0-ht restored????? etc. etc. etc.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 9:42:19 AM EDT
Post from Imbroglio -
I am sure if Harry Browne were to change his party affiliation to REPUBLICAN the GOP sheeple would heartily endorse his comments.
View Quote
I don't know any GOP sheeple personally, so I can't answer on their behalf. As far as I'm concerned there's a whole bunch of people in the GOP I don't agree with, and I'd kick their asses out, but we need their money and their votes! Their 'weak-sister' views they can keep to themselves, outta range of my earshot. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, eh?
I couldn't find anything in the article I don't agree with.
View Quote
Now that I can believe. Eric The(MyCountryRightOrWrong,ButAlwaysMyCountry!-S.Decatur!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 10:01:55 AM EDT
My philoshophy is very much libertarian, and I believe we should not intervien in other nations except when it is clearly in our best interest in the long term. However, I have to say that the reason people around the world hate us is because they resent the power we have. They resent our wealth and our influence. The fact that sometimes we may over do it in interviening in other nations doesn't help, but it isn't the root cause. Western culture is the most powerful culture in the world, and represents the height of human achievement. The US represents the highest level of Western culture. That is why people hate America, and that is specifically why Islamic fanatics hate us. Everytime they see a McDondalds, American TV, or a woman wearing Western dress they are reminded that the culture of Christians has surpassed them.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 10:22:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Chimborazo: Perhaps this is just the time we [b]should[/b] be evaluating the reasons for the attack. Not only do we need to strike back hard against these terrorists and eliminate their existence, but we need to identify and eliminate the [i]reasons[/i] for their existence. Please understand the difference between causation and justification. These attacks were not at all justified, but there are reasons behind them and until we address those, we will forever be attacked. Just my $.02
View Quote
EXACTLY!!!!!!! It is intellectually lazy to simply dismiss bin Laden et al as "insane" or "crazy" and NOT to learn from these attacks, as to causitive factors. is there ANY possible justification for the September 11 attacks?? NO, ABSOLUTELY not. Should we hunt down and kill with extreme prejudice those responsible?? Yes, ABSOLUTELY. But I'm afraid that the US is INDEED doing something that in some small way irritates these murderers to commit these acts. I think it is something that is VERY avoidable. And some of you know exactly what I am talking about.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 10:27:52 AM EDT
Looks like more BS from you. If you take offense at that statement, then you know how I feel at your statements. He seems right on the money to me. Here's a good Quote:
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.
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 2:20:14 PM EDT
I agree with most of your posts eric, but why say Harry Browne has an agenda? because his opinion is different then your own? what if somebody said that you have an agenda because your rhetoric was different then what they profess. What has Harry Browne said that is Un-American? because he thinks there may be a better solution to solving the problem other then bombing a non-legitimate government. he did not say that those involved should not be punished. wether or not our government has ever attacked non-combatants is debatable. i personally do not know of any incidents on foreign soil were it was an order, but i do remember Kent state, and the WW1 vets who were killed...by order of our government. if our government can order the shooting of non-violent protesters at kent state, then would it not be possible for it to have happened on foreign soil. do not think that Libertarians are Anti-war. there are consequenced for actions. if Afgahnistan has plans for a prolonged campaign to terrorize the U.S., to kill U.S. citizens, then i say we should turn them into glass. Harry Browne's statements are concerned with our knee-jerk reaction to threaten other countries with violence for not turning over a criminal. What if someone from the U.S. bombed britain killing thousand of brits? do we just hand him over or try him here if he is here? i disagree with Harry Browne in considering Afghanistan has a legitamate country though. their people are behind him and military action should be taken against him. but what about terrorists in other countries. should we go after the IRA, they are terroists, but live in a country with a legitamate government. would we have a right to bomb them? for what an IRA member does. thoughts please [:\]
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 4:44:40 PM EDT
"Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism." What exactly does HB think america has done to deserve such an attack? he alludes to it when he says "Our government has created ill will in many parts of the world," but I cant think of any "foreign policy" by the US to which the proper response by these parties would be to kill over 6,000 innocent civilians. "Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism." Yes, lets not be un-PC Rule #3: Bombing foreign countries doesn't end terrorism, it provokes it. 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." I submit, that if we hadn't bombed these countries, Laden wouldn't hate us less. "Rule #4: The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war" Sure, and crashing a plane into a building is simply re-modeling the facade.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 5:08:02 PM EDT
Post from RamblinWreck -
More BS from Eric(theUninformedDeadHorseBeater)theHun to slam Libertarians. While I don't like HB, and don't agree with HB, your post seems crafted to slam Libertarians in general, and unfairly categorize them as unpatriotic Osama-yo-mama supporters. So you. I think you hate Harry Browne just because he advocates cutting foreign aid to Israel. And Japan, and Europe, and the UN, and....... GOOD!
View Quote
Wow, dude! You got all of [u]that[/u] from my simple: 'So Is This The New Face of Libertarianism'? I take it you fancy yourself a Libertarian? Hmmm, I have really got to watch my parenthetical statements, you seem to attach a great deal of significance to them. Which is good, don't get me wrong! But it was merely a question, not a statement! And I had no idea that I had any stake in the outcome of foreign aid to Israel! If I do, those bastids have been holding out on me for a very long time! Thanks for telling me! I can't imagine that we give foreign aid to Japan, but if you say so, then I guess it's true! BTW, let me give you the Hun equivalent of the bird, before I go. Ooops, it appears that I'm fresh out of vulgar hand gestures. Sorry! Eric The(ThenThereWasThisGaTechCoedWhoHadToGiveUpH­erVibrator,ItKeptChippingHerTeeth!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 5:34:01 PM EDT
Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism. Rule #7: There's no way to eliminate all terrorism in the world. Hmmm, seems kind of contradictory to me. So even though he admits terrorism always has been and always will be a threat, and even though the WTC - WORLD TRADE CENTER - was and has been a target for years, it's still the American Governments fault. Whatever. Rule #4: The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war. Oh really. Osama publicly declared war on the US a few years ago. Go stand on top of the 6000 dead INNOCENT people and then tell me an appropriate solution is to give the terrorist a fair trial and a non-violent sentence. These anti-government people are starting to piss me off. Exactly how are they helping? United we stand, divided we fall.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 6:01:05 PM EDT
You know [b]Avtomat[/b], I promised libertarian that I was going to give him my thoughts on this thread, and told him I was going to post an explanation of my views on what Harry Browne had written. But I see now that you have answered for me, better than anything I could have written for myself! Thanks! In the Cold War, we were always chastised by the liberal media for failing to do this or that, in respect to some Soviet gambit. We were constantly told just how far short of the mark we were in achieving our goals for our country and for mankind in general. The United States was always held up for criticism against the most stringent ideals. On the other hand, anytime the Soviets made a move anywhere in the World it was always excused by the 'thinking class' using forgiving terms such as 'Realpolitik' and a recognized and understandable 'need for security' in their far-flung Czarist-like empire. Any wrong they ever perpetrated was forgiven by the chattering classes, even before the last kulak was buried, the last peasant executed, the last border violated, the last treaty broken, or the last outrage committed. But that was o.k. with me, for the United States always seemed to be able to meet the highest standards in its conduct with other nations, and the Soviet Union never failed to disappoint its supporters in always failing to meet even the lowered expectations for its conduct on the world stage. Now we've entered a new period in which the Soviet empire is no more, but there are still those who hold the United States as the most evil nation under the sun, maybe in the history of humankind! Wow! How did we fall so far so fast? We didn't. It just suits some people's fancy to say that we are responsible for the terrorism that struck our nation on 9-11-2001. Maybe it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy, because if it's [u]our[/u] conduct that must be changed, there is at least hope for all mankind. If the United States ever finds itself on the wrong side of history it [u]will[/u] change. If the problem is a large, poor, backward, emotionally charged part of the world, then we're doomed, cause we know that it will very likely never change! So as long as the problem's ours, there's hope! I say, however, that we're doomed unless we realize the problem is not with the United States, it's not with the Europeans, it's not with the rest of the industrialized world, nor with Israel, nor with anyone [b]other than the terrorists themselves[/b]! Eric The(AnyOtherSuggestionLeadsUsNowhere!Fast!)Hu­n[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 8:58:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2001 8:54:49 PM EDT by libertarian]
Originally Posted By Avtomat: "Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism." What exactly does HB think america has done to deserve such an attack? he alludes to it when he says "Our government has created ill will in many parts of the world," but I cant think of any "foreign policy" by the US to which the proper response by these parties would be to kill over 6,000 innocent civilians.
View Quote
I agree mostly because of "Our government has created ill will in many parts of the world". however we do have foreign policy that causes other nations to not like us. siding with isreal, kuwait, taiwan, south veitnam, and south korea. we lend financial aid, military equipment, food and the like to some countries enemies. by helping another nations eneimies, we become an enemy to them. by the way, as far as bin laden is concerned, i think he would hate us anyway. what i think HB was trying to say is that there may be more to it that motivates him to do so against us and we should find out about for our own benifit. the versailis treaty used against Germany helped to anger the Germans against the rest of the world. i dont know what exactly we (our govt) may have done to inhibit laden before is aggression toward us, but if it does exists why not find out about it?
Rule #3: Bombing foreign countries doesn't end terrorism, it provokes it. 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." I submit, that if we hadn't bombed these countries, Laden wouldn't hate us less.
View Quote
i agree, but bombing such small forces that are spread out could only be so effective against them. guerilla tactics work. conventional weapons are difficult to use against small, hidden numbers
"Rule #4: The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war" Sure, and crashing a plane into a building is simply re-modeling the facade.
View Quote
again i agree, especially since sr15 pointed out that Bin laden declared war against us. from what i understand a war is something that happens between two or more countries (not barring civil wars of course). laden is a loose canon and may or may not represent afghanistan as a country, not like a king or president or anything. i would cringe to find out if laden was simply tried in court instead of a .308 bullet put through his head.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 9:16:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2001 9:17:54 PM EDT by libertarian]
Originally Posted By sr15: Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism. Rule #7: There's no way to eliminate all terrorism in the world. Hmmm, seems kind of contradictory to me. So even though he admits terrorism always has been and always will be a threat, and even though the WTC - WORLD TRADE CENTER - was and has been a target for years, it's still the American Governments fault. Whatever.
View Quote
help me out here, i dont see how this is contradictory. he does not say the our government is responsible for terroism around the globe. there are things that the government may do inadvertantly to alter the perceptions of those living in other countries. what could be wrong in looking into our foreign policies and reviewing them? not all terrorist live in the middle east. not all people who hate america live in the middle east (some of them live here).
View Quote
These anti-government people are starting to piss me off. Exactly how are they helping? United we stand, divided we fall.
View Quote
is Harry Browne anti-government? i've been a libertoon for over two years now and have never heard of any party member advocating anarchy. if you believe the HB is anti-government, then you do not understand his concern for our bill of rights, rule of law, and governing priciples. Harry Browne and i do not despise government. we wish to preserve it. our founding fathers created a wonderful form of it that libertarians and true Republicans (pretty much the same) wish to preserve our rights, constitution, and way of life. our founding fathers were anti-corrupt government as are we. they opposed the policies and laws imposed on them by king George. these men did not disrespect the rule of law, but cherished it and built a nation for us. a nation with checks and balances where law protected our rights and way of life, not work against it. if embracing statist ideals and eradicating the Bill of Rights is behaving Pro-government, then i guess HB and i fall into the category of being anti-thatgovernment. sorry [:(] Im not against you, nor do i wish to stand seperately from you. i'm pretty sure that since you are here on this board that we already have a lot of views in common. please do no divide me from you. united we stand, divided we fall we can all hang together, or we can all hang seperately lib
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 9:46:30 PM EDT
Mr. Mercer, Do you categorize the operations of our Armed Forces in the Field as Revenge/Vengence??? It is my contention that they are not. In fact the word revenge is just that , a word. I don't think it is applicable in this situation. REVENGE WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING ? YOU ARE RIGHT; BUT AN ALL OUT WAR WILL. Which is what we are doing. Benjamin
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 10:28:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2001 10:48:03 PM EDT by sr15]
Originally Posted By libertarian: help me out here, i dont see how this is contradictory. he does not say the our government is responsible for terroism around the globe.
View Quote
No, he said that our government is responsible for provoking the recent attacks. And in the same article he states that "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." I agree with what he says here. No mater how the American government behaves (or any government for that matter) there will always be people that disagree with their behavior. So, I don't understand how one can blame the government for provoking the attacks while at the same time recognizing that the threat of attack is always present. Sometimes people (terrorists) just act in a totally irrational manner and their actions can not be explained. Maybe it's not anyones fault except for Osama and his followers. I don't think that a man capable of doing what he did really needs to be provoked and blaming ourselves or our government is rediculous.
there are things that the government may do inadvertantly to alter the perceptions of those living in other countries. what could be wrong in looking into our foreign policies and reviewing them?
View Quote
Nothing, but I don't think you will find anything wrong enough to cause a rational human being to target the lives of so many innocent American citizens. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything our government does either. But I'll support it right now!
is Harry Browne anti-government? i've been a libertoon for over two years now and have never heard of any party member advocating anarchy. if you believe the HB is anti-government, then you do not understand his concern for our bill of rights, rule of law, and governing priciples. Harry Browne and i do not despise government. we wish to preserve it. our founding fathers created a wonderful form of it that libertarians and true Republicans (pretty much the same) wish to preserve our rights, constitution, and way of life. our founding fathers were anti-corrupt government as are we. they opposed the policies and laws imposed on them by king George. these men did not disrespect the rule of law, but cherished it and built a nation for us. a nation with checks and balances where law protected our rights and way of life, not work against it. if embracing statist ideals and eradicating the Bill of Rights is behaving Pro-government, then i guess HB and i fall into the category of being anti-thatgovernment. sorry [:(]
View Quote
Ok, maybe anti-government was the wrong term here. I just meant not being supportive of the recent actions of the US government and placing blame. Belive me, I have no interest in eradicating the Bill of Rights and I did not mean to accuse you or anyone else of such an idea. In fact, I'm willing to support the Constitution and Bill of Rights with my life.
Im not against you, nor do i wish to stand seperately from you. i'm pretty sure that since you are here on this board that we already have a lot of views in common.
View Quote
Probably so.
please do no divide me from you.
View Quote
Ok
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 10:37:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Eric The(ThenThereWasThisGaTechCoedWhoHadToGiveUpH­erVibrator,ItKeptChippingHerTeeth!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
LMAO
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 11:48:25 PM EDT
I have sat here and read this politically correct bullsh*t long enough. The United States is the top of the food chain gentlemen. Therefore we are the #1 target for every idiot who wants his 15 minutes of fame ie: Harry Browne,Osama Bin Laden,the Taliban and (most)of the middle east. Let's look at the facts: Attack on WTC & Pentagon is a plain and simple act of WAR meant to bring down our economy and gov't. It was done by Osama Bin Laden ie Taliban ie Afghanistan. The gov't has proven to every nation that has seen the evidence that he is responsible. I haven't heard any nation dispute this evidence. Can anyone tell me if there is any other country in this world that would take an attack like that and worry about their foreign policy? I think not. Another country would have already leveled Afghanistan!!! I don't think many innocent people would be killed if we nuked the place today as most of the citizens have fled to other countries.(Millions I believe). The only reason we have paused before protecting our freedom(not revenge)is that we who have become the world's policeman, want to eradicate this disease. When is the last time you have seen a pirate, folks? They created a lot more havoc in their time period than the modern day terrorist. It took the whole world in a collective effort to get rid of them. Now you have to go to the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disney World to see one.(my fav by the way) DON'T TELL ME IT CAN'T BE DONE!!! Most of the middle east is just plain jealous of what we have created for ourselves and of the help we give our FRIENDS. They know deep in their hearts without the oil they have nothing to offer the rest of the world. I can't think of one major achievement this region has given to the world. These people have little or nothing to look forward to while growing up unless they escape their region and look for a life elsewhere. If you have nothing to live for, you have every reason to die. They are easily brainwashed with religion by their leaders. They promise them riches and beautiful women in the afterlife because those leaders know they have little chance of achieving that in this life and they play on their greed and vanity like the devil himself would. Their leaders change sides when they get in a tight spot quickly and often.(see Saudi Arabia) Just to confuse their enemy they claim but in reality because they have never had the guts to stand for anything but what piece of land that appeals to them most. While America and most of its allies stand for the ability to live in a free and decent world devoid of unclean tactics and morals that destroy the core of the human race.
Link Posted: 10/4/2001 11:49:46 PM EDT
Our foreign policy is fine gentlemen. This crisis has surprised us with all of the support we have received from around the world. We have several allies in the middle east, albeit shaky ones. The ones that are not,if you haven't noticed, have usually been to busy killing each other and have not had time to receive guests. This idiot Harry Browne would not last 5 minutes in a room with the grandmother of a victim of the WTC attack if he started spouting his pathetic political correctness garbage. We have suffered an act of War. We have proven to the world who is responsible. We have appeased every nations concern that we could. Now we have every right to protect our freedom. We have assembled our forces at their front door. Our cause is just and we will maintain our place in this world as the top of the food chain. Why? Because we have Big Brass Balls that are stamped MADE IN THE USA. [soapbox]
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 4:17:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertarian: he does not say the our government is responsible for terroism around the globe
View Quote
That's EXACTLY what HB is saying. But for our foreign policy, the terrorism against the US would not exist, according to HB. I say, no matter how fake nice or introverted or isolated we are, these people are going to attack us. HB would disagree: if we hide hard enough, the bad guys won't bother us.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 4:38:24 AM EDT
It's very easy to find an answer to this problem. Let Colin Powell resign as Secretary of State, and George W. can simply nominate Osama Bin Laden as his replacement. The Senate confirms the nomination and [i]Voila[/i] no more nasty terrorist attacks! Secretary of State Bin Laden, from his underground bunker-like office in the State Department Building in DC (he's gotten use to 'cave' dwelling by now) can manage our country's foreign policies in a much more benign manner than Mr. Powell could ever hope to manage. Of course, Mr. Bin Laden's first move - an order to have the Israeli Embassy officials and personnel taken out onto the Mall and beheaded -might cause a stir and some amount of protest, but if that's the price America has to pay for security around the globe - it's a pretty small price indeed! Eric The(CourseThatDamnWashintonMonumentHasToGo,It­ObstructsTheNewSecretary'sViewOfMecca!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 1:19:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By blackeye: Our foreign policy is fine gentlemen. This crisis has surprised us with all of the support we have received from around the world. We have several allies in the middle east, albeit shaky ones. The ones that are not,if you haven't noticed, have usually been to busy killing each other and have not had time to receive guests. This idiot Harry Browne would not last 5 minutes in a room with the grandmother of a victim of the WTC attack if he started spouting his pathetic political correctness garbage. We have suffered an act of War. We have proven to the world who is responsible. We have appeased every nations concern that we could. Now we have every right to protect our freedom. We have assembled our forces at their front door. Our cause is just and we will maintain our place in this world as the top of the food chain. Why? Because we have Big Brass Balls that are stamped MADE IN THE USA. [soapbox]
View Quote
basing your opinion of Harry Browne only on the article you have read does not give you a complete picture of him. HB is anything but Politcally correct. at least not to a big government left-winger. HB shares a lot of views with people on this board including: Pro-gun, Pro-constitution, Pro-free economy, and is against excessive taxes. he does not support whe class warfare and big government policies of the left. just because he makes a statement you do not agree with, makes him a bad person. a lot of people here on this board will defend George Bush even though he supports trigger locks and a ban on hi-cap magazines. nobody is "perfect" evil Harry Browne supporter lib [bounce][:D]
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 1:27:52 PM EDT
sr15 and Avtomat: i thank you both for a logical and reasonable response. after rereading HB article the second time through i've picked up on what you guys are saying. i cant say that i disagree with HB whole article of course. it would have helped if he had factual information to back up his statement. please do think that libertarianism is based soley on emotional knee-jerk reactions. this is not what i am about, nor do the majority of people who support this party. i ask questions and want answers the same as everyone else. our distress over the loss of our constitutional republic makes us cynical and wary of government actions. Spock lib
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 1:32:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: After Browne violated the clearly stated rules of his own party during the last election, there is little he can do that will surprise me. I have nothing but contempt for this hypocrite.
View Quote
i meant to respond to this quote earlier. i have not heard about HB violating party rules. how is he a hypocrite? please list a source if possible. curious HB supporter lib
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 2:00:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 3:09:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2001 3:04:53 PM EDT by sr15]
Originally Posted By libertarian: sr15 and Avtomat: i cant say that i disagree with HB whole article of course.
View Quote
I understand. I don't disagree with the entire article either.
please do think that libertarianism is based soley on emotional knee-jerk reactions. this is not what i am about, nor do the majority of people who support this party.
View Quote
I have a pretty good understanding of what libertarianism is about. A couple of my friends have run for public office on the libertarian ticket. For the most part, I agree with libertarian ideas.
i ask questions and want answers the same as everyone else. our distress over the loss of our constitutional republic makes us cynical and wary of government actions.
View Quote
Whoa, our Constitutional Republic is not lost yet. I am quite cynical myself and do not agree with all of the actions of President Bush and his administration either. However, I truly believe that they are doing the best they can with the available resources and I'll support their efforts, even if it's not the only or best solution. One thing is for sure, no one knows more about bin Laden and his organization than the Bush administration and the FBI/CIA/NSA agents working on the case. To question and criticize their actions based of knowledge supplied by the media is, well, asinine.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 8:49:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: Read the latest about Harry Browne here, and in the last several issues. [url]http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/[/url]
View Quote
thanks for the link raf. have printed in hardcopy, plus the timeline page. please remember that libertarianism is a governing philosophy. no single person can represent it. just as no single republican can represent the entire party. unfortunalely i have encountered people in the past who have passed judgment on all libertarians on what one has said. (this means you wes [:D]) i could not challenge his view, he simply yelled over my voice. he was absolutely convinced that all libertarians were anarchists drug pimpers. funny thing is that i dont use drugs, but he smokes weed. [smoke] haha, one chick thought we were an offshoot of the green party. LOL reading lib
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 9:55:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Avtomat: "Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism." What exactly does HB think america has done to deserve such an attack? he alludes to it when he says "Our government has created ill will in many parts of the world," but I cant think of any "foreign policy" by the US to which the proper response by these parties would be to kill over 6,000 innocent civilians.
View Quote
Start with half a million dead Iraqi children, entirely due to the sanctions that the U.S. has kept going against Iraq long after they were demonstrated to be useless for their stated goal of hounding Saddam Hussein from power. All the sanctions have done is to give Hussein time to kill off anyone who dared to speak out in opposition to him. All the sanctions have done is to give Hussein an external enemy against whom he can rally his serfs.
Rule #3: Bombing foreign countries doesn't end terrorism, it provokes it. 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." I submit, that if we hadn't bombed these countries, Laden wouldn't hate us less.
View Quote
Proof? Oh, right, "proof by assertion."
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 9:57:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: You know [b]Avtomat[/b], I promised libertarian that I was going to give him my thoughts on this thread, and told him I was going to post an explanation of my views on what Harry Browne had written. But I see now that you have answered for me, better than anything I could have written for myself! Thanks!
View Quote
So, in other words, you want to avoid making any more really dumb statements?
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 10:05:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2001 10:02:10 PM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 10:29:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: The Iraqui people must assume some blame for not rising up against this creature who holds the Iraqui peoples'intrest in such contempt.
View Quote
Well gee, weren't the Kurds in northern Iraq doing and being encouraged to do exactly just that? The U.S. promised them support, let them get in over their heads, then the promised support was never delivered. Is there any wonder why the U.S. gets people in other countries pissed off?
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 10:31:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2001 10:28:45 PM EDT by sr15]
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed:
Rule #3: Bombing foreign countries doesn't end terrorism, it provokes it. 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." I submit, that if we hadn't bombed these countries, Laden wouldn't hate us less.
View Quote
Proof? Oh, right, "proof by assertion."
View Quote
I agree with Avtomat and this is kind of easy to prove. Just look at the facts in chronoligical order: 1986 Bombing of Libya 1991 Persian Gulf War Feb 1993 First bombing of WTC Aug 1998 Bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan Sept 2001 WTC/Pentagon bombings bin Laden was linked to the 1993 bombing of the WTC. He even claimed that he would not fail on the next attempt. So, he obviously disliked America long before the Sudan and Afghanistan bombings. The bombings of Libya were years ago and I don't think they are even relevent at this point. The only event really in question is the Gulf War. And do you honestly think the US had no reason to be there?
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 10:35:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 12:50:39 AM EDT
Post from 71-Hour_Achmed -
So, in other words, you want to avoid making any more really dumb statements?
View Quote
Not at all, but I have noted that you've never avoided making really dumb statements.[:D] Eric The(SuchAsTheOneAbove)Hun[>]:)]
Top Top