Harry Browne: America - Love It or Leave It

[shanek]

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/AmericaLoveIt.htm

Until the 20th century, America minded its own business. John Quincy Adams put it very simply: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

But today there are people living here who don't like the American tradition of peace and friendship. They want America to roam the world — attempting to right all the wrongs — no matter how often it fails to achieve its utopian goals.

To those people I say, "If you prefer constant aggression and conflict, why don't you go live in Lebanon?"

America was once the land where individual privacy and civil liberties were highly prized, where government had no power to pry into your political associations, your financial transactions, or your luggage.

But today there are those who don't like that American tradition. They say that national power and nation-building are more important than individualism and privacy.

To them I say, "If you prefer nosy government, why don't you go live in China?"

What is truly strange is that these critics of the American way of life — people who prefer the alien values of the Old World — have the audacity to criticize those of us who love America — calling us, of all things, "un-American," "unpatriotic," or "anti-American."

Supposedly it is now naïve, unrealistic, or cowardly to believe in the uniqueness of America. So we are attacked for trying to preserve and restore the very qualities that made America the world's most attractive country.

After all, if we aren't going to be that unique place called America — the place that was once the beacon of liberty and peace, providing light and hope and inspiration to the whole world — what's the point of living here?

The critics of America may try to wrap themselves in the American flag, but their allegiance is actually to some other flag. I don't know where they'd be happiest, but it obviously isn't America.

So to those people I say: America — love it or leave it.

[Tony]

thats a nice strawman he's constructed.

[Kodiak]

Harry Browne...groan... :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
thats a nice strawman he's constructed.

It's hardly a strawman—I've been told that many times, even on this very forum! "Well, if you have such a problem with America, why don't you just go somewhere else?"

[Attrayant]

1st mate: Captain, the ship is leaking!

Captain: Well if you have a problem with that, get the hell off!

[Supercharts]

If I ever get fed up with this country I'll move to Texas.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Supercharts
If I ever get fed up with this country I'll move to Texas.

Let me know when you're coming so I can fire up the barbecue.

I confess ignorance as to who he is - I don't keep track of these folks. Doesn't he make a valid point? I think so. All I see is a lot of ad-homs thrown at him.

All I know is that the America he describes is a LOT more familiar to me than the one we've had for the last few years.

The right has largely succeeded in turning the country I was brought up to believe in into something else entirely. The rest of the world doesn't hate America - not the one I know. It hates the new Amerika the right is busily constructing.

[JeffR]

My take on the Harry Browne piece is that he's being a bit sarcastic. He's trying to show the irony of the use of the "love it or leave it" slogan against people who are merely speaking their mind by those who call themselves patriots and defenders of the American way.

Is that so obvious that I didn't need to say it, or are other's interpreting it differently?

[shanek]

Originally posted by JeffR
My take on the Harry Browne piece is that he's being a bit sarcastic. He's trying to show the irony of the use of the "love it or leave it" slogan against people who are merely speaking their mind by those who call themselves patriots and defenders of the American way.

Is that so obvious that I didn't need to say it, or are other's interpreting it differently?

I thought it was so obvious, which is why I didn't say it initially.

[JAR]

I feel that the policy of staying out of foreign wars is faulty.

If we fight the enemy before his territory has enlarged 10 times its original size, then we will be able to beat him without using a military draft.

[Fade]

A very ironic piece, but the message is pretty much true. I've been called all those things (unamerican, unpatriotic, etc) because I don't believe we need to be the worlds police, and that the government needs to stay the hell out of my life.

So how again is it a Strawman?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR
I feel that the policy of staying out of foreign wars is faulty.

If we fight the enemy before his territory has enlarged 10 times its original size, then we will be able to beat him without using a military draft.

Reminds of the Monty Python Papperbok, and the ancient Celtic martial art of Lapp Gokk. It will teach you the secret of Lapp Gokk, which is to attack your enemy from behind before he attacks you.

The idea may be sound in obvious cases such as WWII. However, one has to wonder at the threat Chile or Vietnam posed to the US.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Fade
A very ironic piece, but the message is pretty much true. I've been called all those things (unamerican, unpatriotic, etc) because I don't believe we need to be the worlds police, and that the government needs to stay the hell out of my life.

So how again is it a Strawman?

The US can't act like the rest of the world doesn't exist. There appears to be a false dichotomy presented here, either the US runs the world, or it completely removes itself from the world. There is surely a middle ground where the US tries to be a responsible world citizen, as should every other nation.

[JAR]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Reminds of the Monty Python Papperbok, and the ancient Celtic martial art of Lapp Gokk. It will teach you the secret of Lapp Gokk, which is to attack your enemy from behind before he attacks you.

The idea may be sound in obvious cases such as WWII. However, one has to wonder at the threat Chile or Vietnam posed to the US.

I think that if country A invades country B when there is no evidence that country B intended to invade country A, the U.S should defend country B.

Now, the war in Iraq is different. The U.S. made rules that Iraq should not have certain weapons that it would never need.

Iraq was given plenty of chances to show hard evidence that it didn't have those weapons and it didn't give that evidence. Therefore it was justified when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JAR


I think that if country A invades country B when there is no evidence that country B intended to invade country A, the U.S should defend country B.

Now, the war in Iraq is different. The U.S. made rules that Iraq should not have certain weapons that it would never need.

Iraq was given plenty of chances to show hard evidence that it didn't have those weapons and it didn't give that evidence. Therefore it was justified when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

As has been shown in another thread, the issue of WMD was never an issue. It was just a pretext.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As has been shown in another thread, the issue of WMD was never an issue. It was just a pretext.

Again!? :rolleyes: Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War terms of surrender and was in noncompliance with UN resolution 1441.

Terrorist connections and possible NBC stockpiles were just more fuel for the fire.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Again!? :rolleyes: Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War terms of surrender and was in nonconliance with UN resolution 1441Those are both UNSC resolutions. One would think it would be down to the UNSC to decide the consequences, no?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Martinm

Those are both UNSC resolutions. One would think it would be down to the UNSC to decide the consequences, no?Yup. Otherwise, it's vigilanteism -- "he broke the law by stealing, I will punish him personally, and screw the due process" kind of thing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Martinm
Those are both UNSC resolutions. One would think it would be down to the UNSC to decide the consequences, no?


The UNSC did decide. 1441 stipulated that serious consequences would ensue if Iraq failed to comply.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Martinm

Yup. Otherwise, it's vigilanteism -- "he broke the law by stealing, I will punish him personally, and screw the due process" kind of thing.

There is no such thing as "vigilanteism" when it comes to modern diplomacy and statecraft (especially in light of an impotent UN), and the only true "due process" is propanganda and public opinion.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony



The UNSC did decide. 1441 stipulated that serious consequences would ensue if Iraq failed to comply.

Which meant nothing, since it came from the UN.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Martinm
Those are both UNSC resolutions. One would think it would be down to the UNSC to decide the consequences, no?

True, one would think they would have acted...


[u.n.mantra]"Stop, or we will tell you to stop again!"[/u.n.mantra]

[Martin]

Originally posted by Tony
The UNSC did decide. 1441 stipulated that serious consequences would ensue if Iraq failed to comply. But it didn't specify what those consequences would be, thus requiring a second resolution.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Kodiak
True, one would think they would have acted...My point is simply that if you're going to circumvent the UN and international law, using UNSC resolutions as justification doesn't fly. The issues raised in those resolutions, perhaps. But that brings us back to WMD and suchlike.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Martinm
My point is simply that if you're going to circumvent the UN and international law, using UNSC resolutions as justification doesn't fly.

I disagree. Without the US, there would be no UN. Everyone knows that any UN force would have been comprised overwhelmingly with US servicemen and funded primarily with US dollars. That, and the fact that international law does not override our sovereignty, gives us more than a legitimate say in what should be done when faced with a impotent UN.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Martinm
But it didn't specify what those consequences would be, thus requiring a second resolution.

It doesn’t matter. It clearly said serious consequences would follow if Iraq failed to comply, and that is exactly what happened. Would you agree that war is a serious consequence?

[Martin]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Without the US, there would be no UNAnd?Everyone knows that any UN force would have been comprised overwhelmingly with US servicemen and funded primarily with US dollarsAnd?That, and the fact that international law does not override our sovereignty, gives us more than a legitimate say in what should be done when faced with a impotent UN. Does international law override Iraq's sovereignty? Seems to me that your way will lead either to double standards or to the conclusion that international law is wholly irrelevant.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Tony
It doesn’t matter. It clearly said serious consequences would follow if Iraq failed to comply, and that is exactly what happened. Would you agree that war is a serious consequence?A nuclear holocaust is a serious consequence. Killing all their first-born is a serious consequence. Raping all the women is a serious consequence. Did UNSC 1441 sanction those?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Martinm
A nuclear holocaust is a serious consequence. Killing all their first-born is a serious consequence. Raping all the women is a serious consequence. Did UNSC 1441 sanction those?

The UN sanctioned serious consequences. Those scenarios you described are indeed serious consequences, so yes, the UN did sanction those.

[Martin]

I see. So, what you're basically saying is that you have the mental capacity of a stunned haddock.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Martinm
I see. So, what you're basically saying is that you have the mental capacity of a stunned haddock.


???

You can’t argue with my logic so you resort to ad homenim? Typical.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As has been shown in another thread, the issue of WMD was never an issue. It was just a pretext. Uh-ohhh.....,

Can't we agree to disagree? Can't we all just get along? :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Martinm
Does international law override Iraq's sovereignty?

Nope. If Iraq had chosen to abide by the UN resolutions and the Gulf War terms of surrender, the US never would have invaded. The choice was always Iraq's...

With or without the UN, the US decided that Iraqi noncompliance should be punished.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Nope. If Iraq had chosen to abide by the UN resolutions and the Gulf War terms of surrender, the US never would have invaded. The choice was always Iraq's...

With or without the UN, the US decided that Iraqi noncompliance should be punished.

You really believe that?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You really believe that?

The real problem is that you don't!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The real problem is that you don't!

As was revealed by white house sources, as noted in a previous thread, the Bush administration was never too concerned about the WMD issue, it was just one more pretext for a war that was going to happen anyway. The idea that by complying with the UN resolutions, the war would have been avoided was laughable, just as laughable as the notion that it was about Iraqi human rights.

The WMD have still not been found. I bet there is a million dollar reward to the first Iraqi who can point out where they are.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As was revealed by white house sources, as noted in a previous thread, the Bush administration was never too concerned about the WMD issue, it was just one more pretext for a war that was going to happen anyway. The idea that by complying with the UN resolutions, the war would have been avoided was laughable, just as laughable as the notion that it was about Iraqi human rights.

The WMD have still not been found. I bet there is a million dollar reward to the first Iraqi who can point out where they are.

Very nice predictions, a_u_p. You trying to give Silvia Browne a run for her money?