A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing
 

A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing

by Harry Browne

February 12, 2003

George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Perhaps a corollary of that axiom should be: Those who know only historical slogans should quit using them to support their causes.

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

But citing Hussein's promise isn't the only way history is misused.

History is invoked to justify the U.S. starting a war against a foreign country (Iraq in 1991, Serbia in 1999, and now Iraq again) because "history tells us" we have to stop the latest incarnation of Adolf Hitler before he proceeds to conquer the entire world. As though Serbia or Iraq could be compared to the power of Hitler's Germany.

And the history-sloganeers remind us over and over that millions of lives would have been saved if only the Allies had stopped Hitler at Munich.

A historical slogan can be a wonderful thing. It allows you to reduce all the complexities created by billions of people to a simple equation of Good vs. Evil, white & black, us & them.

The Facts

However, the world didn't begin in 1938. And amateur historians apparently have never bothered to go beyond their high-school history lessons to discover what made it possible for Hitler to threaten Europe in 1938. And the background throws a completely different light on the relevance of 1938 to today.

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.

Many Serbs thought Bosnia should be part of Serbia instead of Austria. When the Austrian Emperor's heir apparent, Archduke Ferdinand, visited Bosnia, he was murdered by a Bosnian Serb protesting Austrian domination.

This act sucked almost all the countries of Europe into the bloody first World War. Austria declared war on Serbia. And because of mutual defense treaties, Britain, France, Belgium, Romania, Greece, Portugal, Montenegro, Russia, and even Japan went to war on behalf of Serbia. On the other side, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, and Turkey supported Austria.

Eventually, 15 million soldiers and civilians would be killed and at least 20 million wounded, all because one person had been murdered — a fitting testament to the irrationality of war.

Stalemate

The war probably could have ended in 1917. Both sides were devastated and seeking an armistice. But America, under no threat of attack by the Germans or Austrians, entered the war that year — allowing the Allies to step up the war and forcing Germany to surrender in 1918.

The Allies imposed oppressive terms on the Germans — who, by a complicated argument, were blamed for the entire war. Important parts of Germany were confiscated and given to Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France. Germany was stripped of its colonies. And the Allies forced the Germans to assume the cost of the entire war — a price they could never hope to pay.

To the victors go the spoils, indeed!

Enter Hitler

All that most Americans know of 1920s Germany is the decadence they've seen in Cabaret and other movies. But here was an intellectual country devastated by losing the resources to support itself, made to pay horrendous reparations, and suffering from a runaway inflation that caused a loaf of bread to cost billions of marks.

If we realize what the Germans were forced to go through, we can begin to understand how one of the most culturally advanced countries of the world — the home of Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, and Wagner — could have fallen for a thug like Hitler.

Hitler would have been laughed out of Germany in 1910. But in 1933 he seemed to be the only person able to end the reparations, recapture the stolen territory, reunite families, and restore Germany's glory. The Germans could see he was a brutal man, but they were told you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

(Unfortunately, everyone assumes it will be someone else's eggs that will be broken, and no one notices that the omelet never materializes.)

Conclusions

So perhaps those who love to recite historical slogans could give some thought to a few lessons from history that are relevant to today's situation and could help us understand something about our own future . . .

• If U.S. politicians had minded their own business in 1917, instead of plunging America into a war that didn't threaten us, an armistice would have occurred, and the existing governments in Russia and Germany most likely would have remained in power — meaning no Soviet Union and no Hitler. But do-gooders always believe they know what's best for the world — and they claim that some simple act of force will settle matters once and for all. It never does.

• If the U.S. had stayed out of World War I, most likely there would have been no World War II, although it's entirely possible that other wars — more localized — would have occurred. World War II was the direct result of World War I — and, more specifically, of the U.S. interfering in World War I.

• If the Allies hadn't imposed draconian peace terms on Germany in 1918, there probably would have been no Hitler to threaten anyone. Germany would have resumed its role as an intellectual and cultural center in Europe. (American diplomats learned their lesson and eased their demands somewhat at the end of World War II.)

• The Allies forced the Germans to promise things that could never be delivered. And using force to exact promises from someone like Saddam Hussein creates about as much security as ordering your cat to guard your home. If the demands are unnatural (as expecting a country in the Middle East to disarm certainly is), you can expect a backlash.

• There always will be thugs like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein in the world. But those thugs aren't dangerous to us until we create real grievances that cause millions of people to support the thugs with money, networking, and connections that allow the thugs to threaten us.

There's a Lot More

We haven't even touched on some other salient facts of history that bear on today's situation — such as the attitude of Muslims in the Middle East toward foreigners who have invaded and subjugated Arabs over the centuries. Nor have we looked into the way the British and French in the mid-1900s drew unnatural boundaries in the Middle East that were bound to lead to turmoil.

And when amateur historians remind us that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 (as though that were an excuse for bullying Iraq forever) probably not one of them could tell you why Iraq invaded Kuwait. Are they aware of the oil disputes, the fact that Kuwait has more in common with Iraq proper than the northern Iraqi Kurds do, or that Kuwait not too long ago was prepared to become part of Iraq? Are they aware that the American ambassador to Iraq gave her blessing to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait just a few days before it occurred?

Nor have we touched on another important part of history — the assertions made by our government before and during the Gulf War, assertions that later proved to be false. There were no Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border, no Iraqi atrocities in Kuwaiti hospitals. The "smart bombs" General Schwarzkopf talked about so proudly in his TV briefings were hardly ever used in the war — and when they were used, they missed their targets more often than not. And the number of innocent Iraqi civilians killed was revised upward several times after the war.

Of course, all that is ancient history. So why dredge it up today?

Because the men who told the lies in 1991 — Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell — are the same men providing the "evidence" that we must go to war again.

When Colin Powell says he has solid evidence for the claims he made at the UN, we have to remember that this is what he and his associates said before the Gulf War.

History is more than slogans.

• It is facts backed up by evidence you can verify;

• It is human nature being relived over and over;

• It is continual confirmation that we must treat our own government with great skepticism;

• It is an admonition that initiating force never produces the results promised for it.

And if we ignore history and listen to the slogans instead, it will be you and I who will suffer the consequences.
When will we learn?

Re: A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing
 

Harry ain't here, so why is this article?

Morally, yes. But there is a set of protocols and procedures for dealing with promises made under duress in the absence of an overseeing authority. These protocols and procedures are necessary to allow surrender in the first place -- if they didn't exist, your enemy would have every reason to destroy you rather than come to terms with you, since you wouldn't follow any terms.

So there's nothing morally wrong with violating the terms of a peace treaty. But in doing so, you DO justify (in as much as the original war was justified) a re-start of hostilities. And this time, your enemy is unlikely to accept any surrender terms, so you'd better be able to win.
[/quote]

Hitler's Germany, back when he re-occupied the Rhineland, couldn't be compared to Hitler's Germany as it became. There may be reasons Iraq is different, but off-the-cuff dismissal like this is exactly the sort of thing history really DOES teach against.

Harry, you're just an embarrassment to yourself and to the party you claim to represent.

Because it's a great article by a great man.


The original was wasn't justified at all.

History shows us that our military interventionism was precisely why Hitler came to power in the first place. If America hadn't stuck our noses into WWI, there never would have been a Hitler or a WWII and the 10 million Russians, 6 million Jews, untold number of millions of Chinese, Italians, Americans, English, etc. never would have been killed. In fact our previous intervention is why Saddam came to power. If America hadn't helped Saddam come to power in an effort against Iran, he wouldn't be a thorn in our side or anyone else's. Actually Saddam and Iraq pose no danger to America or any other country on earth. Not one shred of evidence has been brought forth to prove they are.

When will our country learn that our military interventionism creates problems instead of destroying them. History also shows that when we have a complicated web of treaties promising military intervention (which happens to be unconstitutional) into other countries a small squabble or event (the murder of 1 man) can turn into a bloody world war killing millions.

Harry is not an embarrassment to anyone but his intelligence and common sense do embarrass the Republicans and Democrats who are too frightened to debate him. Harry Browne is a great man and is a better candidate for president than any Republican or Democrat that has ever held the office. It's only a shame he won't run again.

Re: A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing
 

Y'all may remember from the "what are you reading" thread that I'm working on a biography of Hitler. That doesn't make me an expert, but it won't keep me from expanding some of these points.

Let's not forget that there was actually a revolution in Germany in 1918, and it was the new government who surrendered. The old monarchy was apparently prepared to fight till the end, no matter what the cost. I can't speak to how the entry of the US affected or did not affect this, but what little I know suggests that the German government of 1917 would not have been interested in an armistice.

In 1910 Hitler was an itinerant living in a men's hostel who made his living by painting postcards that were then sold by associates of his (including some Jews), and who pretended that he would one day be an architect even though he had failed the entrance exams for art school twice and had never made any efforts to train as an artist or an architect.

OK, that's picky. Still, in early 1923, Hitler had made a name for himself as a 2-bit rabble-rouser, and the government went so far as to arrange his deportation to Austria, but for some reason they never followed through on it. (At this point Hitler was still technically an Austrian citizen.) Later that year, Hitler staged the infamous Beer Hall Putsch. After it ended, Hitler was imprisoned after a show trial that gave him a national platform to spew his venom. After a period of a handful of months, Hitler was released on parole. This happened over the very strenuous objections of the Bavarian state prosecutor, who at least twice appealed to have Hitler's parole overturned.

The German "people" had precious little choice by this time. Reich President Paul von Hindenburg and other right-leaning aristocrats (of which there were many) didn't give a damn about democracy and were convinced that all of Germany's problems could have been solved if they could reinstate an authoritarian government rather than a parliamentary one. He did everything he could to dilute the power of parliament so his cabinet could rule by presidential fiat. His appointment of Hitler to the Reich Chancellorship in 1933 was not something he wanted to do, but with deteriorating economic conditions, support for the Nazis was high enough that they had to be involved in the government, and Hindenberg apparently thought he had stacked the cabinet with enough of his own non-radical right-wing cronies that they would be able to keep Hitler's more outlandish tendencies in check. The day after Hitler was installed as Chancellor, Hindenburg agreed to dissolve parliament and call elections, a step he had refused Hitler's predescessor 4 days ago. This allowed the Nazis to solidify their hold in Parliament.

The bottom line is, Hitler did not seize power, he was given it, because the power brokers were more afraid of democratic rule than they were of the Nazis, especially since the Nazis were controlled by an incompetent politician whose only talent was to give speeches and rile people up.

initiating force never produces the results promised for it.

Or at least, when it does, you should try to figure out how to redefine the word "force" until it suits your arguments.

By 1917 the war had already taken its toll on all parties involved. Armistice talks had already begun. It was America’s involvement in the war that prevented the armistice from becoming a reality and the oppressive terms of the allies that allowed someone like Hitler to come to power. And yes, Hindenburg did give power to Hitler, but only after the Nazi's made sure nobody else could get the job. Hindenburg hated Hitler and the Nazi's because he knew they were thugs and murderers but he thought he could control them if they were on his side. He was mistaken to say the least.

Make no mistake, Hitler and his followers did indeed seize power in Germany. They murdered those who stood in their way and gained power by pushing Hindenburg around until he finally gave in.


Since that hasn't happened yet, the traditional definition of the word "force" will suffice.

Had America stuck to the policy of non-military interventionism created by our founding fathers, the war would have ended earlier, and most likely more reasonable terms would have been given to Germany which would have made the conditions in Germany impossible for Hitler to come to power.

America's military interventionism is why Saddam is in power in the first place. Let's do as the constitution provides for and only use our military for the defense of American soil or ships, not for the defense of other nations. Not to overthrow the leaders of sovereign nations. Not to threaten or bully other people with our military spread all over the world like the Roman Empire. Let's trade freely and only attack when we are directly attacked. Iraq has never attacked America, never funded, trained, harbored, or helped anyone else attack America. We had no justification to attack Iraq in 1991 and we still don't.

America's military interventionism is why Saddam is in power in the first place.

And also, of course, why Moscow is not.

You don't really want to bring the USSR into this do you? After all, when we saved the world from the real Hitler we also helped enslave Eastern Europe under Stalin. I wonder who the new Stalin is if we are going to put the Hitler mask on Saddam.

Nice try, but American military interventionism is why we had a problem with Russia in the first place. If America hadn't been involved in WWI, there wouldn't have been a WWII and Russia and America wouldn't have fought over the spoils of war and never would have had a problem.

American military interventionism had nothing to do with the downfall of the USSR unless you count America stockpiling weapons as intervention. The USSR was going broke on their own and would have crumbled within 10-20 years without Reagan spending trillions and ensuring generations of Americans would be born into debt.

Go ahead guys, I think there are a few more straws you haven't grasped at yet.

lol @ Undertoad.

The case has been proven and is as solid as a rock. The only one grasping for straws and attempting to justify American military intervention is you despite the glaring cold hard facts of history showing how horrible the ramifications are when we take part in it. You blindly ignore the indisputable fact that America's involvement in WWI was what led to WWII. You blindly ignore the fact that America's military interventionism is almost always the reason we have a new "Hitler" to fight.

actually, this is all the pilgrims fault. because without pilgrims, we wouldnt even have america.

~james

OK, let's try another little exercise. 1967. Israeli intelligence picked up on the fact that Syria, Jordan and Egypt were going to attack. So Israel attacked first by hitting the Egyptian air force and knocking it out. This stranded Egypt's ground forces on the Sinai peninsula and Israel took the entire thing.

Israel hasn't yet been attacked. They initiated force. If they had not, they would have lost the war and there would be, in all likelihood, no Israel today.

Wrong of them to do?

In the late 70s Iraq built a nuclear reactor, with French selling it tech, with which they intended to fortify nuclear materials for a bomb. Israel fighters went and blew it up in 1981. If they hadn't, Hussein probably would have had nukes in 1991 with which to back up his use of force at that time. This would have complicated things nightily, needless to say. Or, perhaps the Iraqi initiation of force against the WTC in 1993 would have had a stronger bomb to load in the Ryder.

Wrong of the Israelis to do?

In 1967 Israeli was told outright by Syria of the attack. They didn't discover it. But that aside, with Israel knowing about it, they should have re-enforced thier forces and had their airforce on alert and as soon as they saw a jet take off from Egypt, they should have attacked.

Yes it was wrong of them. What if Syria was lying? What if Egypt wasn't going to attack? Israel was wrong to attack first. It is always wrong to attack first. Israel would have won even if Egypt attacked first.

True statement

Baseless speculation

True statement

Baseless speculation

Iraq didn't attack the WTC in 1993, Ramzi Yousef (An Iraqi individual citizen who wasn't sent by the Iraqi government) did. But if Iraq did attack in 1993 they were perfectly justified in doing so since they were the victims of unwarranted, unconstitutional, and unnecessary attacks by the United States in 1991. They were also starved and kept from life saving medications.

Absolutely. Without a doubt they were wrong and so was America.

America had no justification to attack Iraq in 1991 and still doesn't in 2003. Israel had no justification to blow up an Iraqi nuclear reactor or to attack Egypt first.

They sit on some of the highest-quality oil in the world. What were they going to use a nuclear plant for?

UT you know Saddam was just trying to save the environment from the pollution that oil causes. He's a good person like that.

Saddam did it for fun...he seems like one of those Type-A personality folks. He just wanted to see you shit on yourself.

Anyway, your application of these principles requires nations to basically commit suicide. To defend what, exactly? The principles? Doubt they'd survive; they'd lie amongst the wastes of all the systems of thought that died out from having no cultures left to think them.

These are not problems that Americans have had to think about. But they aren't problems that are just going to go away if we ignore them. The world is getting smaller; the distance between nations is smaller, and technology brings us closer, much earlier than we would have hoped. And if the bombs proliferate there will be no one not at constant risk.

For thier own energy needs while they sell the high quality oil.

Who said anything about ignoring problems. But starting unconstitutional wars against countries that pose no threat to America (Iraq poses no threat to America) isn't in the defense of America which is the only valid use of our military.

Being military non-interventionists isn't being isolationist and it's not ignoring problems.

Neither America, nor the U.N. has the legal or moral authority to tell any nation what weapons they may or may not have. America doesn't choose who can have nukes. And if Iraq had nukes they'd probably just have them to ensure they're not the victims of unwarranted attacks such as those in 1991. They'd use them to make sure our planes stopped making illegal "no fly" zones, and to get our troops out of thier country. They'd use the principle of mutually assured destruction to get the respect thier sovereign nation deserves.

Lather Rinse Repeat

You have got to be fucking me, you really think Saddam is going to spend millions of dollars on a nuclear plant when he already has power plants that use oil. It costs him pennies to make electricity out of oil. I don't care how much he can sell a barrel of oil for there was now way in hell he could cover the cost of the Nuclear plant with the oil he uses to make electricity.

Oh yeah and for the rest of your argument what UT said.

Iraqi nukes

Nuclear energy is cheaper than oil. Less than the pennies. And Iraq knows that since they're selling all their oil eventually they will run out of it.

Like everything else, the FBI claims they've got evidence of a nuclear weapons program but have offered none. All they know is that Iraq had a nuclear reactor. They've got no proof of a nuclear weapons program. And even if they did have proof that Iraq was building Nuclear weapons, Iraq is a sovereign nation and can have any weapons they choose. They don't require the permission of the U.N., Israel, or America to have nuclear weapons. Israel was wrong to attack Iraq.

Griff, let's just discount the Iraqi nuke details from Nigeria (and the FBI's competency) and just use the ones Blix's team found in the home of an Iraqi scientist.

Re: Re: A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing
 

1. Because "original thought" and "radar" are mutually exclusive terms.

2. He hasn't figured out how to link to an external article yet. This isn't the first time he's done this.

wolfs back! and awesome as ever! :)

~james

This is simply wild historical speculation. And I do mean wild. True, _ANY_ major change in history at that time would have made it unlikely for Hitler to come into power in Germany. But perhaps instead Russia, defeated in WWI, would have become wildly expansionist on its own, producing similar problems -- or even worse, without a strong opponent to balance Stalin. Remember that Russia surrendered BEFORE the US entered the war -- and the November 1917 Communist Revolution probably would have happened either way.

Not even close. Although I do a lot of reading from great minds like Lysander Spooner, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexis de Tocqueville, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, Frederic Douglas, Harry Browne, Milton Friedman, Frederic Bastiat, and many others, I often express my own original, intelligent, rational, and witty thoughts on this and other boards. You on the other hand have yet to have any thoughts, let alone an original one.

It's easy to make links. Even an idiot like you could do that. But then if I used a link many of you would be too lazy or stupid to follow it. Instead I copied it here and even formatted it like it was originally posted.


That is no less wild and no less speculation than the thoughts I expressed.

Contempt for one's audience, Mr. Outreach?

It's not exactly straight outta "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

That's called "violation of copyright".

If folks are insufficiently fascinated by things that fascinate you to follow the link, why bother posting it in plain text? That can be ignored equally well.

No, just contempt for the stupid. And even when I do outreach booths if someone just wants to come up and argue, I'll be polite for a minute and send them on their way. If they insult me I'll tell them to get the hell away from my booth.

I know Harry Browne and it wouldn't take more than an email for me to get his permission. In fact I already know he wouldn't object to my posting in here to educate people like you.

Prove it. Ignore it and stay away from the thread. Then I'll believe you.

"But then if I used a link many of you would be too lazy or stupid to follow it." - Radar


I am awed. I really enjoy attempted forcible education by aggressive people with superiority complexes. Can we arrange some B&D later?

I for one would like to thank Radar for the selfless efforts to set our skewed thought processes right once again. I've always wanted to be freed of the twin curses of self-determination and free thought.

The benefits of the Cellar simply cannot be overestimated.

Re: A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing
 

The "promise" you speak of were in the terms of his surrender. It's not a promise, it's a political agreement that he was forced to come to as a direct result of his agression on Kuwait (see below).

Like a couple others mentioned (perhaps somewhat impolitely) - I find this to be the biggest speculation in the article (while at the same time the author decries the use of speculation in favor of "history").

Let's just hold our horses right here.. Anything past this sentence is pretty far fetched speculation. In times of global crises, whether or not events would have played out differently is subject to anyone's opinion, regardless of how many pundits agree or disagree. You simply can't tell what would have happened.


Here we go again. /Reagan

One more time, because it seems to be a popular theme. After the first clause, while probably true (and you mention it yourself, allied diplomats seemed to have learned their lesson post-WWII), the author only moves on to more speculation, something that anyone is qualified to give an equal opinion on, because when you pare away all the layers of fancy vocabulary and historical "warm-up", it's just that: speculation.

I particularly liked this one. :)

Cultural similarities are no basis for an invasion by force. Canadians probably share a good amount of our (American) cultural similarities.

"Was prepared" being the key phrase here. Perhaps they were "almost" perpared and Iraq took offense they didn't go through and decided to invade anyway?

Unfortunately, one official's opinion and blessing (a minor official at the time, all things considered) does not represent all of us.

None in the kuwaiti hospitals, but how about lighting the oil wells or the deliberate dumping of oil into the Gulf?

3/24/1989, Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska: 10.9 million gallons.
2/15/1996, Sea Empress spill off coast of Wales: 18 million gallons.
12/3/1992, Aegean Sea loses 21.5 million gallons northwest of Spain.

And previous to Iraq, the WORST spill recorded in history and one some estimate will cause environmental damage for ANOTHER 100 years: June 3, 1979, The Ixtoc 1 oil well in the Gulf of Mexico explodes, spilling and estimated 140 million gallons of crude oil into the sea.

Iraq's dumping of oil? A paltry 460 million gallons, the effects of which still have not been calculated.

While not specifically aimed at "humans" and therefore considered an atrocity, this qualifies in my book.

I'd double check your sources on this one.. While we have no way of truly knowing the numbers because _I_ won't even go as far as to say our government would give us 100% accurate and truthful numbers, draw your own conclusions, YMMV:

According to the Pentagon: 80-90% of smart bombs hit their targets. The target choice has often come into criticism as water, sanitation, roads, hospitals were targetted, but the bombs themselves performed as intended.

In contrast: the same source released that approximately 70% of "dumb" conventional bombs miss their target.


So wild speculation about the end of WWI and cause of WWII is okay?

Exactly. Exactly! I think most people here are aware of the Holocaust and do everything possible to BE responsible as a world community. I used to think there was a joke that any argument on the internet was "officially lost" when you brought in the Nazis/Hitler/The Holocaust - but I guess we can let it slide here because it was brought out at the outset. :p My point here is that History (if anything?) has shown us that brutal, oppresive regimes are best stopped as soon as possible. Saddam may have killed 30,000 Kurds 14 years ago, that could have been just a start. All the more pressing a reason to force abdication.

Agreed. However, don't confuse skepticism with blind opposition.


Unfortunately, I'm not the clear, concise writer that many of you here on the Cellar are, and so I can't really wrap this up in a powerful conclusion that will stand out for anyone, so I'll just say that I'm in support of disarmament (for a slew of reasons, WMD just being a fairly pressing one) and that I support our troops and our country's presidental administration (although that Bush guy... he needs to go :p ).

Thanks for the time-
ChrisD

What makes you think the U.N. or America has the authority to disarm anyone? America is no more legally or morally authorized to disarm Iraq than they are of disarming America. What would those who support the forced disarmament of Iraq based on a U.N. resolution say if the U.N. security council told America that we had to disarm entirely and that they would send inspectors from China, Russia, France, and Iraq to inspect the white house, pentagon, military bases, missle silos, and even American homes 24 hours a day 7 days a week without notice?

America would tell the U.N. to shove it. And that's exactly what Iraq should do. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't ask permission from the U.N. or America about which weapons they can or should have.

Bush is using unverified non-compliance with the U.N. resolution against Iraq as an excuse to start an unconstitutional war while at the same time fipping the U.N. the bird and telling them we won't listen to them if they tell us not to use force. Why should Iraq listen to the U.N. if America won't?

ChrisD, you can write like real good and stuff. The problem is that if Radar is only interested in one-way communication, it's kinda pointless to write anything.

</cloaking device>
Well... what do you expect from a bartender? Frankly, I blame it on the lack of an academically-rigorous education. Apparently, upper-level writing courses aren't a graduation requirement at the Southeast Nevada Institute of Animal Husbandry and Mortuary Science.
<cloaking device>

Nothing wrong with being a bartender. And I have a degree in computer science dickhead. On your best day and my worst you couldn't expect to keep up with me intellectually.

Radar's motivation
 

Unfortunately for Radar's good name, his postings here reveal a Blame-America-Firster.

While he hews to the Libertarian shibboleth that a virtuous government (The LP, not being largely in power, has the luxury of pushing great and high virtue in governmental behavior, but this Libertarian does not expect to see much of that should Libertarian philosophy come to ascendancy in our republic's government. Just jaundiced of view, I guess!) shall not initiate use of force, Radar rather hopes no one will notice that the flaw in that argument in current circumstances is that force has already been initiated, twice over on one major Manhattan target, in a Yemeni harbor, and upon two embassy buildings, by self-declared enemies. Five times is more than enough for any definition of enemy action. Perhaps Radar does not consider that we actually have any enemies at all, let alone the kind of hysterical anti-Americanists we shall have to rid the planet of. A hint, therefore: libertarianism's foes are collectivists, socialists, and other unfree types, and these are not scarce on the ground.

Libertarianism may be cutely defined as: Libertarianism, the anti-Socialism.

Actually, to judge by the number of smiles and snickers of disbelief that crossed my countenance on reading Dr. Brown's article, I may be a better student of history than he.

/s/ Urbane G -- Big L Libertarian by party registration, small L libertarian by philosophy

That's Mr. Browne, not Dr., and his specialty is not history but selling his books on approaches for the upcoming bad times. Which, judging by the timing of his books, are always upcoming.

How did the LP twice nominate someone who has made a living predicting bad outcomes for the American economy?

(That question's rhetorical - I already know the answer.)

Urbane, your naiveté reveals your ignorance regarding history and our government. It’s not a matter of me being a “Blame-America-Firster” because I’m not. It’s a matter of me placing blame where it belongs. If America weren’t using our military to bully other countries around and to practice imperialism, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

It’s not a luxury to expect the government to stick to our constitution. Nor is it strictly a Libertarian phenomenon. Nor is it related in any way to the power that the Libertarian party holds in government. Most Americans can and should expect our government to abide by the constitution that defines and limits the powers of government.

Unfortunately for you, there is no flaw in my argument because none of the attacks you mentioned were on the part of Iraq, funded by Iraq, planned by Iraq, or connected to the Iraqi government at all. In fact Iraq has never funded, harbored, trained, or supported anyone who has attacked America. The sole purpose of the American military is for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships. Not to police the world, not to tell other sovereign nations what weapons they may or may not own. Not to overthrow the leaders of other nations or to make “regime” changes. Not to practice imperialism. Not to defend any nation other than our own. You conveniently left out the fact that Iraq has never attacked America ever, but they were the victims of unwarranted and illegal attacks on the part of America in 1991. After that they were starved and kept from medicine. They were told they couldn’t fly planes over their own country, and bullied for 12 years by a nation that has no legal or moral authority over them.

Perhaps Urbane doesn’t realize that our military interventionism, our use of foreign “aid” to bully other countries, and our imperialistic show of force around the world is the reason we have so many enemies in the first place. The founders of America were military non-interventionists and so are all reasonable people. And your support of genocide against those who are “anti-American” only proves that you are not a reasonable person.

It may more accurately be defined as those who support the most freedom at the least cost and who recognize and respect the rights of others and the sovereignty of other nations.

Judging from your pretentious manner and the cavernous holes in your logic I wouldn’t think you were much of a student of any subject, unless you count the study of ostentatious and hackneyed use of vocabulary.

Because he was correct on all counts. If you read his books you'll find that he predicted this whole Iraq thing several years before Bush was elected. The writing is on the wall even if you are too blind to see it and too illiterate to read it.

Remember folks, in this case, you can ignore the infection and it won't harm you later.

Radar's ad hominem attacks detract from his credibility somewhat, and while I do my best to honestly give everyone a chance and keep an open mind, ad hominem on the internet simply has the effect of reducing the author to a troll.

That being said, Radar: I do believe that at times (most times!) we should play the role of turtle - hole up in our shell and ignore those injustices that may be occuring in the world, weather or not they might be pointed at us, our views, or our belief in fundamental human rights.

But at other times, I think Spiderman said it best: With great power comes great responsibility.

I'm open to both sides of the argument. My biggest fear (problem?) with the oncoming war is a backlash of terrorist sleeper cells at home. Hopefully the FBI and good 'ole Ridge are on top of that threat, but it's hard to assess accurately. However, my biggest problem with the anti-war faction is what I call the "French" factor: A mindset determined to oppose, regardless of the facts at hand, simply for the sake of opposing. Whether it be the chic thing to do, the hippie thing to do, the peaceful thing to do, or the right thing to do; some people are simply opposed and will be no matter what they are shown or told.

In my opinion, these are the people who will be the most quiet when the US is vindicated post-war when the media can uncover the mass graves, torture chambers, hidden prisons, and most importantly: the ever so cliched weapons of mass destruction.

We will be vindicated.

Yes, other people, who perhaps have no say in the matter, would.

It seems as if we keep coming back to this, while I feel like you haven't really addressed the issue of the original Gulf War. Do you honestly feel as if Iraq marching upon Kuwait, regardless of the "almost" reasons I addressed in a previous post, was a legitimate action? That we were somehow in the wrong to assist Kuwait from the occupation by the Iraqi military? That, by consequence, we were wrong to enforce the terms of that treaty by which the Gulf War was ended?

You make an excellent chain of transitive connections, but your original premise is flawed, or at least you believe differently that most about what really happened 12 years ago. Can you explain that for me/us?

My only other comment to you Radar might be to attempt to hold off on the ad hominem regardless of what others might say. While I'm inclined to agree with them :p , we can keep this from being a 12-year-old mud slinging INTARNET FITE GR0UnDZ!! if we all try to stay mature, right?

Primarily because Iraq/Hussein has shown a somewhat fearful tendency to abuse self-restraint in the use of the aforementioned arsenal, we have the "legal" and "moral" obligation to lighten his load.

In response to the second question, as I stated in the post above, those actions were based on the treaty of the Gulf War, in response to Iraq's aggression and attempt to take by force the independent and sovereign nation of Kuwait. Do you believe that such action was unwarranted, or that we should have "let those stinky arabs deal with it themselves?" I believe in liberty for all humans, and personally sometimes we're better equipped to deal with it than others. If your neighbor was abusing (trying to kill?) his child, wouldn't you call the police or attempt to help as well? It might not be "your business", but some things require the aid of those who can.


This is an excellent point and one that I still have trouble with. Personally I feel as if we should make every effort to verify more than minor non-compliance with the UN resolutions.

However, that being said, as Colin Powell and Bush have stated many times (and the UN has not disputed), vast quantities of chemical weapons (mustard gas), biological weapons (anthrax) and deployment mechanisms (scud missiles, drones, etc) were present and accounted for several years ago. That kind of merchandise does not simply "get lost".

Saddam is not dumb - perhaps disillusioned, but not dumb. He's made a life work of hiding these items, and he has had plenty of time to prepare for inspections.

Furthermore, it has to be made poignantly clear that these inspections are a farce from an ineffectual organization in an environment that cannot yield true inspections.

The inspectors provide (or are provided, I forget, sorry) a list of potential inspection sites. Their rooms are bugged. They travel in huge caravans of marked cars by which spies/guards of Hussein can phone the locations ahead of time. Fake accidents are staged to delay traffic when the inspectee site cannot prepare in time. Phone conversations have been recorded and played in which this game of hiding all the material and payments for "clean inspections" exist. Scientists are "interviewed" in a room bugged, taped, and with a military guard present.

Can you honestly tell me that you believe in your heart that the inspections are proving that those weapons must not exist because the inspections aren't showing anything? If anything, logic dictates that the inspections coming up empty handed proves clear violation of the original resolution, as it mentioned that proof of weapons disposal/destruction must be given, while it has not.

ChrisD

So let me get this straight chris..
You approve a war on Iraq because Iraq has "torture chambers, mass graves and weapons of mass destruction" and has shown a tendency to to be agressive, right? And this means the US has a 'moral' obligation?
(and a legal one? A legal one???? really? according to what law? the law of what we can bully the UN into passing this week?)

And that Iraq was in the wrong because without provocation it invaded a soverign state (Kuwait), and thus the US was morally right in becoming involved militarily.

I'm confused, does the US 'moral' obligation extend to all the bloody dictatorships it set up or only Iraq? Does it include ones that pop on their own or only US seeded ones? Was Iraq picked out of a hat or by rolling a dice? Is the justifier a lack of 'freedom' or posession of WMDs? If WMDs does such a 'moral' obligation extend to quasi allies such as Pakistan or only those who it is politically safe to villify in the present political environment? Is the US the only 'policeman' with the right to invade and colonise soverign states or are here others who have somehow gained such privliges as well?

I hope you can clear this up for me.

Since the sun set on the British Empire, it does seem to be up to us now, doesn't it?

Amongst other reasons, sure. Human rights violations are despicable (and don't misunderstand me to turn a blind eye when the US is responsible for the same violations).

The rhetoric aside, yes, UN international "law". I do believe that we have a moral obligation to help the citizens of Iraq out (as well as other countries, but we won't get into that here), but I also believe that going through the UN is as "lawful" as you can get. Law's authority comes from recognition of said law, and the UN is widely recognized (simply by the participation of many world countries) as a lawful organization, although by no means the supreme world law. What law, you ask? The law of resolution 1441.


Er, yes? While I see that you are trying to go for "two wrongs don't make a right" by using "right" with a note of sarcasm, your analogy fails in that it was not only the US who helped, but the US with UN forces. The UN (and the world at large) generally approved of the remedy to the crisis in Kuwait.

Be more specific?

Scathing sarcasm (again) aside, no. There were a multitude of reasons, some stronger than others for different people.

A. Possession and willingness to use WMD.
B. Terrorist Links
C. Humanitarian Issues
D. A reason to end trade sanctions.
E. Oil and other Corporate Interests
F. Regime change

Some will argue (for or against) other points more strongly than others. Others will try to inflate one argument as the sole reason for us going to war, when I'd like to believe that it is the sum total of the aforementioned reasons for deciding to go to war with Iraq, also given that post 9/11, the climate of the United States tolerance of such sum totals has decreased.

"Yes."

An excellent point. Many will say that even the USA is in possession of such WMD. Or "what about North Korea? - Surely nuclear weapons are more dangerous than some mustard gas?" To which I respond that yes, perhaps there are other countries who are in possession of those WMD. However, one key factor here is very, very important to recognize: that behind the wheel is the man who has tested the viability of his weapon systems on his own people. A minority population, to be clear, but Iraqis nonetheless. Most WMD that people have in the world stem from such (silly) ideas of mutual assured destruction. You got the nukes? We got more, nyah nyah. However, it is quite clear that a cursory analysis of Saddams character reveals he would hesitate less than a Planck time in pushing the button or giving the order. He simply needs a reason or a time he believes he can get away with it.

Well, we aren't "colonizing" Iraq, nor are we technically "invading" although a military presence there will be a requisite for the regime change. But yes, currently I would say that we are the only country in the world in the unique position of playing 'policeman'. It is unfortunate that others are not willing to assist an oppressed country in times of need, but so be it. Like I said before, with great power comes great responsibility.

Any questions? :p

The United States government will never be responsible for defending any country other than our own. The size of our military and the weapons they wield don't change that fact.

Finding weapons of mass destruction and even mass graves with MILLIONS of people in them would still not vindicate and attack against Iraq. NOTHING short of a direct attack against America (which Iraq has had no part of directly or indirectly) would be cause to send our military to fight in Iraq.

Every country has a responsibility to defend themselves. America is not the judge or police of the world. The only country the American military can legally defend is our own.

Absolutely without a doubt, America was EXTREMELY wrong to take action against Iraq even when they were occupying Kuwait. As I have said and the constitution says, the American military is for defending American soil and ships. Not to defend Kuwait, not to overthrow foreign regimes, not to assassinate leaders to replace them with leaders we prefer, not for humanitarian aid, not to train foreign militaries, not to protect "American interests", not to dictate what weapons foreign countries have, and not to do anything other than DEFEND American soil and ships from attack. That means the only legal justification for the use of the American military is to fight off attacks from foreign nations and pirates when they occur; not perceived threats, not possible threats, not future attacks, etc. only actual attacks during and after they take place. "Pre-Emptive" strikes NEVER fall under the category of DEFENSE and the American military is defined in the constitution as solely for defense.

America had no place in Iraq in 1991 and we still don't. And the agreements Iraq signed after our unjust and illegal actions against them were under duress and can hardly be binding. If I put a gun to your head and make you sign the title to your house over to me, my ownership will never hold up in court.

We have no such moral or legal obligation or even authority to dictate what weapons other nations have. Nor do we have the lawful right to enforce our wishes on them no matter how uncomfortable we feel with them.

I've never said anything about "stinky Arabs", but I do believe that the American government gets its very limited powers from our own constitution; not from the U.N., and not because the president or congress think it's the right thing to do. The constitution clearly made our involvement in Iraq in 1991 illegal. Kuwait has a responsibility to defend themselves and most likely could have gotten Saudi Arabia to take care of them. In the middle-east they have a saying that goes "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against our neighbor, etc". It's far better for the middle-eastern nations to handle their own problems than to use unwarranted and illegal United States military intervention to handle the situation.

I also believe in Liberty for all people and America is supposed to be a shining beacon of liberty for other nations to follow like a lighthouse. But America isn't supposed to use force to make it happen. And your analogy of calling the police is poor to say the least. America IS NOT THE POLICE of the world. In America if my neighbor was killing his wife or children, I'd call American police. But American police (or military) have no authority over Iraq or their people. I hate Saddam. He's a disgusting murderer and deserves to die a horrible death. But no matter what he does short of a direct attack against America we have no business getting involved. He could boil a million babies in oil on television and skin their mother's alive and we still wouldn't be justified in sending our military.

Perhaps they destroyed them. But even if they didn't, Iraq can have these weapons. They are a sovereign nation that doesn't require the permission of the U.N. or America to have any weapons they want even if those weapons are nukes.

I'll agree that Saddam is not dumb. He's a horrible person, but not dumb. And as a person who is not dumb, he would NEVER use weapons such as these against America because he knows if he did directly attack us, we'd turn Iraq into a sheet of glass.

Perhaps. But it must also be made crystal clear that Iraq is under no legal obligation to surrender any weapons or allow any inspectors to check for them. Just as America would tell the U.N. to kiss off, Iraq could (and in my opinion should) have done it. But they have been cooperating.

This is all speculation. The inspectors have helicopters and can fly to any location on a moment's notice and have areas to meet that are not bugged or monitored. They can freely move without anyone stopping their progress.

My question to you is, "How can you use the fact that inspectors didn't find weapons as evidence that he's hiding them?" It would be like me asking you for a million dollars and then accusing you of hiding it when you couldn't give it to me.

One more thing. A few questions all with one answer.

What nation designs, builds, and stockpiles more weapons of mass destruction than any other?

What nation is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons against another?

What nation most often gets involved in military conflicts in foreign nations that are not a threat to their own?

As such what nation is clearly the most dangerous and should be kept from having these WMD's?

If I had a million dollars that I stole from a bank, 2 months ago, and didn't spend it, didn't give it away, didn't destroy it, wouldn't you be right in accusing me of hiding it?

You are well informed, well spoken for, perhaps somewhat abrasive to those who disagree. However, I can see here that we pretty much simply have a difference in fundamental opinion. I believe that as a world community we should attempt to work with each other to make the entire world a better place, perhaps calling on the help of our neighbors when the time comes that we might need it, obviously only taking preemptive action in times of intense duress, where (what I percieve as) basic human rights to life, freedom from oppression, generic-catch-phrase-rights, etc, are infringed or otherwise denied. You believe that each nations right to behave as they wish is a culturally relativistic perrogative, provided they don't step on anyone else's toes, and that we wouldn't have the problems (in fact, much of the world wouldn't have the problems they do) if nations wouldn't muck in other's business.

While I respect your opinion, I have to simply respectfully disagree. :) A couple of thought questions for you:

ChrisDbekistan invades Canada, Canada asks for our military and economic help. Do we help?

ChrisDbekistan decides to murder/genocide 3 million Canadian residents/militia in a bloody civil war. The only world power capable of checking ChrisDbekistans power is the USA. Do we do something?

ChrisDbekistan decides to murder/genocide 3 million Canadian civilians in a large prision camp. The only world power capable of checking ChrisDbekistans power is the USA. Do we do something?

ChrisDbekistan decides to murder all American citizens (tourists, government diplomats, native born americans) - all 30 of them. Do we do something?

I'd just be interested in hearing your response, your purely isolationist viewpoints are unique. :)

flame haiku
 

The radar worldview:
If it doesn't seem to work
It doesn't exist!

Others must obey
the law that I recognize.
Reason: just because!

You say the voters
Wanted something else? Fuck them!
Ignorant dummies.

Murderous tyrants?
They can maim and kill at will -
IF they run a state.

Our own government?
I prefer it hogtied down -
It wants to kill me!

But if it kills me
Murdering to gain power
Hey, it's still legit!

Please, O Canada,
Do not come and rescue me!
Recognize borders!

Invisible lines
Latitudes and longitudes
They're inviolate!

On foreign affairs,
Harry writes my opinion.
Without Him I'm lost.

Toad ... Brilliant. relevant, to the point, and nice haiku

(I also need to compliment ChrisD for having the energy to wrangle with him)

Kudos UT, nice haiku! :)

And thanks wolf. I love the political discussions. I wonder if anyone has the energy to read what I've written.... :p

Oh, schnap! UT broke out the flame haiku! I thought it was supposed to be a limerick though...

Plenty.

Lets start with law.
Now sadly your link to resolution 1441 was broken, although i managed to track down a copy, for the purposes of this discussion i think what matters in the above mentioned resolution is the question of whether Iraq is in material breach based on whether there are any "false statements or omissions" in Iraq's list.

Now while, based on anecdotal evidence, you declare Iraq to be in breach. This alone obviously does not mean Iraq is, I'm yet to see hard evidence it is, we have yes, plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is, a few 10 year old shells in the corner of a mostly disused warehouse, and missiles that may or may not carry WMD warheads that may or may not have been destroyed. This, it seems does not either constitute a material breach. Despite powell's wonderful discrediting campaign with his last speech he did not produce any hard evidence and what he did produce was questionable at best. If you want to play the 'legal action' game, you're going to have to do better than that.

My second paragraph was simply paraphrasing what you said for purposes below.

Well the US played a pivotal role in getting Saddam into power in an era of anticommunist paranoia, along with many other bloodythirsty dictators, does the US's moral obligation only extend to those regimes the US is responsible for in the first place or to home-grown regimes such as many notable African leaders and places such as say, Burma.

Now possession and willingness to use WMD is an interesting one, if as you seem to be suggesting, it is a moral issue. Primarily because many of those agents were directly supplied by US companies with the full knowledge of the US government. Doesn't the virtual sanctioning of such activities, since they were sold even after they were used on civilian populations thereby mean any moral argument based on this is null and void?

Terrorist links is another odd one, in short, what terrorist links? I mean i've seen poor old Powell and make a statement along the lines of "despite Bin Laden calling Saddam in infidel and decrying his regime he clearly has links to him because he does not support the US invasion of Iraq", if that doesn't sound pathetic i don't know what does. It seems despite the best efforts of the worlds biggest intel network, no concrete links have been found, if you no something we don't, please, do tell, otherwise i'd advise you to omit it from the list.

Corporate Interests? I'm not sure if you support a war for all these reasons or are merely listing the reasoning behind such a war from an impartial bystanders point of view but surely invading and destroying a sovereign state over corporate interests, with possible strategic interests is if anything, worse than they invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, which was for strategic reasons.

North Korea has a history of selling missile technology, Iraq does not. North Korea also exports drugs, fake US currency, and now is producing significant numbers of nuclear weaponry. THe leader of the DPRK is clearly nuts. Saddam while a bloodythirsty leader of a despotic regime, is very, very sane and clearly pretty damn smart. The CIA's own report had Saddam down a 'low' threat - unless provoked. He's smart enough to know that doing anything like that would guarantee his destruction, his ultimate aim is survival.

I assume after the invasion of Iraq (what would you call moving in thousands of sovereign troops into a sovereign state, removing the existing government and replacing it with one of your choice) a government of some sort will be set up, it's membership and funding will be decided entirely by the US. Thus it will become what is known as a 'client' state, a British term from the 19th century for a state that you exploit for resources that is all but in your pocket. Such control i'd classify in the same category as a colonization, what would you call it?

I'm saddenned by the fact that, having just read this thread from start to finish, I'm no closer to knowing what, if anything, should be done about Iraq. I do, however, take solace from my belief that, no matter which road is chosen, it will be chosen for the right reasons. If there must be a big brother then 'god bless America'.
ps. Radar v Bill whittle. I'd pay big bucks to see that live

If anyone but Radar had linked to that article we could have discussed it.

We cannot know what would have happened if our government had chosen the non-intervention path back in WW1. We do know that our intervention was part of the blood soaked road that the century became. We do know that our Presidents manipulated and lied to involve us in the blood letting. I doubt Bush is of higher character than the other politicians who held his office.

sorry to be melancholy but where does that leave us future wise

The flame limerick is like a grenade, while the haiku is a precision sniper rifle. The limerick can be too devastating in a closed area. It has to be used with care, and not too often, otherwise the law of averages says one might be hurt in collateral damage.