Quote:
Originally posted by Radar
A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing
[i]by Harry Browne
|
Harry ain't here, so why is this article?
Quote:
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.
|
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]
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.