What Can We Do about Terrorism?

[Steff]

By Harry Browne

This 3-part series will propose the actions I believe our government should take to fight terrorism.

Before looking at those proposals, however, we need to establish some ground rules.

Perfection Isn't an Option

Rule #1: No solution is going to be perfect.

Our government has created ill will in many parts of the world. It has bullied smaller countries, imposed new governments upon people who didn't want them, and demanded that other governments do what our government wants. It's unrealistic to think that there's anything that can be done now to quickly undo all the ill will.

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

[Cherub_Rocket]

I used to be a fan of Harry Browne. I would have voted for him in 2000, if I could have voted back then. He and I still happen to mostly agree regarding the issue of terrorism.

However, I'd be very careful with libertarianism, especially the Ayn Rand brand. Libertarians place an almost divine quality on the will of individuals, even when it comes to things like prostitution.

Badnarik once said something to the effect of, "the law of God should never be held above the law of property." Not to mention he flip-flopped on abortion about 5 times.

Just my observations. (I know it's off topic, sorry).

Edited November 28, 2004 by Cherub_Rocket

[Steff]

No, Badnarik said that anytime the law of property is not held as sacred as the law of God we are in trouble.

Abortion is the one Issue that I'm not fond of libertarians on because they fence sit as a party, BUT at least they recognize that it's an issue that should be state decided not supreme court decided.

[Cherub_Rocket]

No, Badnarik said that anytime the law of property is not held as sacred as the law of God we are in trouble.

Do you have a link?

I'm very certain about what I heard. Let's see if I can find it...

Abortion is the one Issue that I'm not fond of libertarians on because they fence sit as a party, BUT at least they recognize that it's an issue that should be state decided not supreme court decided.

Did you watch the Cornell debates? Badnarik said abortion is a woman's choice, and "not even a State issue." He said it is "an individual choice."

Personally I would argue that abortion is Federal issue for several reasons. First, because a republican form of government is guaranteed to each State in Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution. In a republic, rights are inalienable; surely the right to life is most sacred of all. Second, the Preamble of the Constitution affirms that our government was formed to "guarantee the blessings of liberty ... to our posterity." Third, the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law to all persons within our borders. Whether by common law or by statute, abortion is the murder of an unborn person; thus, laws of protection must be extended to the unborn.

But setting that aside, I suppose I object to the entire philosophy of the party, i.e. pro-choice, pro-homosexual, open borders, legal prostitution, "separation of church and state," etc. I agree with them on economics but nothing else. Nowhere on their platform do they even come close to acknowledging the Creator of all life and liberty.

I was once a member, by the way.

I let my membership expire.

But, I'll leave this alone now; I don't really enjoy feeling politically divided with other believers. We probably agree on a lot anyways, both being constitutionalists.

God bless,

brent

[OneAccord]

Excellent Excellent Excellent article so far. I hope folks can read this article for what it says and not sidetrack to other libertartian issues to discredit it. I notice people like to put a label on the source of articles and then discredit the whole thing.

This article so far puts a pretty concise face on the argument against this bloody war on terrorism, and has some very valid and reasonable points made.

For the sake of concision, let's narrow this article down to it's key points:

Foreign Policy Is the Issue

Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism.

Bombing Doesn't Work

Rule #3: Bombing foreign countries doesn't end terrorism, it provokes it.

This Is a Crime, Not War

Rule #4: The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war.

Reverse Positions

Rule #5: If you think you or America is entitled to something, reverse the positions and see how you'd react.

What Is the Object?

Rule #7: There's no way to eliminate all terrorism in the world.

[Cherub_Rocket]

I agree with what Browne has to say about terrorism.

The way I see it, the "war on terror" is nothing more than a prop. The real issue is POWER, and moving us closer to the New World Order.

Bush's dad was a self-professed globalist.

It shouldn't surprise us that Junior is the same.

[Jon The Jew]

Yes, a new world order where the rest of the world disapproves of him and the war in Iraq. Where he declines to be in the International court. Where he goes to war without the approval of France and Germany, the other 2 "superpowers".

If anything, he is the one man keeping us from a world government.

As for power, what power is there in attacking Muslim garbage (terrorists)? What power has Bush gained, in the rest of the world, by invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

By not declaring a war on terrorism, all we do is hold a Clinton policy to terrorism. Send a cruise missile over to a camp and say "take that you sons of b*****s!". It's like trying to put a fire out by spraying the smoke with water.

[nebula]

By Harry Browne

This Is a Crime, Not War

Rule #4: The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war.

War is by definition an armed conflict between governments. No government has claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and no government has been so accused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK . . .

The attacks on Sept. 11 were an attempt to cripple the US at minimum and and bring us down at maximum . . .

And you are saying that is not a war?

[Cherub_Rocket]

Yes, a new world order where the rest of the world disapproves of him and the war in Iraq. Where he declines to be in the International court. Where he goes to war without the approval of France and Germany, the other 2 "superpowers".

If anything, he is the one man keeping us from a world government.

As for power, what power is there in attacking Muslim garbage (terrorists)? What power has Bush gained, in the rest of the world, by invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

By not declaring a war on terrorism, all we do is hold a Clinton policy to terrorism. Send a cruise missile over to a camp and say "take that you sons of b*****s!". It's like trying to put a fire out by spraying the smoke with water.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What it comes down to is WHO gets the power.

The United States now occupies Iraq and Afghanistan. The PNAC agenda is being carried out as planned.

I predicted 4 years ago that we would be going to war with Iraq. (It was very obvious that Bush was anxious to get us there). I suspected Iraq would be first; however, the terrorist attacks were an unexpected -- though hardly surprising -- factor which changed the order of events.

Our government will next try to justify war with Iran. In the 2006 elections, the GOP will run LBJ-style ads depicting an atomic explosition. (Similar to the ones used in 1964 against Barry Goldwater). Mark my words. The GOP will use Iran as a political tool to win, and then we're off to war. I predict that there will also be a draft.

What happens after that depends on many things. Chances are, there will be another "terrorist attack" and events will repeat themselves.

Fact 1: The PNAC agenda is to gain control of the middle east.

Fact 2: The Bush admin is packed full of PNAC cronies.

Imagine that.

[Jon The Jew]

I would reply, but it's impossible to reply to unsubstantiated claims.