Buchanan's surefire flop. Home Bound

People who live in glass houses, should really not only refrain from throwing rocks, but also from LYING , dear. : - )

If you send impolite / harassing / unasked for FREEPmail, in order to have a falme war,then you have lost your right to complain about what you get in return. I did NOT use any vugarities, in my reponse to you. Keep this behavior up, and you'll soon be the recipient of some unwanted FREEPmail, from the powers that be. Have a good evening. :-)

To Pelham , I saw 'nopardons' post to you . She had sent vugarities and abusive language to my e-mail when I criticized Bushs' weakness against the Arafat , and other positions which Bush ruled on as a liberal( and Rush Limabuagh later that week criticized him )

She states thaat it is against the rules to use bad language. I told her the same thing a month aand a half ago !Well maaybe shr repented ( LOL) P.S .- I am voa -davidk .Look up higher (scroll up )the posts from this one of yours and see my post to her with ....LOL, LOL , aand triple LOL and asking at the end if she would like to hear my impression of a dolphin ? " eeee-Er ! eeee - Er ! eeee-ER ! eeee- Er ! eeeee- Er ! ( then I wrote ) Half My Brain tied Behing My Baack , Just To Make it Fair . "

The founding fathers lived in another age. An age where boundless oceans provided a natural moat. An age without intercontinental flight. An age without weapons of mass destruction. They also founded a country that was one of the weakest in the world, leaving them little choice but to avoid the world's stage.

True in every regard.

None of the conditions they founding fathers faced continue to exist.

Not true.
They faced and delt with the imperial designs of England and France, We have faced and delt with the imperial asperations of England and have not done as well. Their machinations got us into two world wars that were not in our national interst.
As with France, we have finessed Russia very nicely. Thank you GW Bush.

I agree that we are no longer a nation of little power and influence. I do not agree that we should be invegled to solve europe's problems in eastern europe, Africa, and the middle east.

We have the means with our missles, B-52s, and a blue-water navy to impose our will whenever it suits our national interests. The Marines and Army are need to defend our borders, not Kosovo, Isreal, etc.
Ground troops win, keep, and hold territory. They are not needed to punnish those who would do us ill. They are needed to maintain the sovreignty of our nation.

"They faced and delt with the imperial designs of England and France, We have faced and delt with the imperial asperations of England and have not done as well. Their machinations got us into two world wars that were not in our national interst."

You're mixing apples and oranges. We may now be facing similar problems faced by France and England but it does not follow that our Founding Fathers faced these same problems. In fact, the opposite is true since they were on the receiving end of those problems.

Do you really believe the destruction of Nazi Germany, of Imperial Japan, were not in our best interests? Do you believe it was not in our best interests to respond to unrestricted submarine warfare against our merchant vessels (WWI)?

"I agree that we are no longer a nation of little power and influence. I do not agree that we should be invegled to solve europe's problems in eastern europe, Africa, and the middle east."

Nor have I proposed we attempt to solve the worlds problems. We should become involved when the worlds problems become serious threats to us. International terrorism would seem to fit that description.

"We have the means with our missles, B-52s, and a blue-water navy to impose our will whenever it suits our national interests. The Marines and Army are need to defend our borders, not Kosovo, Isreal, etc."

Oh, yes, let us retreat behind the walls of a "Fortress America". Sooner or later the world will come knocking. (Not that I support Kosovo, a place where Bill Clinton and Madeline Albrights idealism got the best of them.)

"Ground troops win, keep, and hold territory. They are not needed to punnish those who would do us ill. They are needed to maintain the sovreignty of our nation."

Wonderful. Let us resort to a few cruise missile attacks. Ground troops are the only way to root the terrorists out of the nests. Surely, Bill Clinton's cruise missile retalitation should have proved how misguided response of the types you propose are and how fruitless are their results.

You propose nothing more than a goal line defense of our borders. I prefer to play the game on the other side of the fifty yard line. It produces so much less destruction on our home turf. If you doubt this compare photographs of Berlin, Tokyo, and Washington DC immediately following WWII.

Do you really believe the destruction of Nazi Germany, of Imperial Japan, were not in our best interests?

Do you think that Hitler was more vicious or killed more innocents than Stalin? Was Tojo more henious than Mao? If so, use other sources of information than the NY media and your HS history book.

Do you believe it was not in our best interests to respond to unrestricted submarine warfare against our merchant vessels (WWI)?

Do some research on the topic and get back to me. Until the the teeth of the British lion were pulled, the UK was the most reprehensible empire (among other atrocities, they were the first to incarcerate civilians in concentration camps) until the birth of the USSR.

Wonderful. Let us resort to a few cruise missile attacks.

A few? Use as many as it takes.

Ground troops are the only way to root the terrorists out of the nests.

Ground troops get killed. Surviving terrorists will have a tough time keeping their footing on glass.

You propose nothing more than a goal line defense of our borders.

Damn betcha.

I prefer to play the game on the other side of the fifty yard line.

Get back to me when you volunteer to put your, or your son's, ass on that side of the line.

"Do you think that Hitler was more vicious or killed more innocents than Stalin? Was Tojo more henious than Mao? If so, use other sources of information than the NY media and your HS history book."

That response totally avoids answering the question: "Do you really believe the destruction of Nazi Germany, of Imperial Japan, were not in our best interests?" Why don't you try responding with something more than gratuitous insults?

"Do some research on the topic and get back to me. Until the the teeth of the British lion were pulled, the UK was the most reprehensible empire (among other atrocities, they were the first to incarcerate civilians in concentration camps) until the birth of the USSR."

More gratuitous insults instead of responding to the question: "Do you believe it was not in our best interests to respond to unrestricted submarine warfare against our merchant vessels (WWI)?" I'll add one more question: "Since the British Empire was so evil, would you care to explain how it's dissolution lead to peace, prosperity, and universal brotherhood through out the world?

"A few? Use as many as it takes."

I would have thought you'd have noticed after eight years of cruise missile diplomacy ala Bill Clinton that bombing mud huts does not eradicate terrorism.

"Ground troops get killed. Surviving terrorists will have a tough time keeping their footing on glass."

Ground troops also kill terrorists. Now who has the best record of killing terrorists, Bill Clinton or George Bush?

"Get back to me when you volunteer to put your, or your son's, ass on that side of the line."

More gratuitous insults. My friend, I was wearing Army green when you were still in diapers.

Please forgive my attemps at understatement and subtlety. Your perserverance deserves better.

The Brittish gave Goebells lessons in effective propaganda. Truely effect propaganda does as intended without notice. The Britts convinced us with help of Pres. Wilson to sacrifice our treasury and our young men for the preservation of UK hegemony.

As for my comparisons, Hitler vs. Stalin and Tojo vs. Mao, without the connivance of Churchhill and FDR, would have been moot.
If we would have kept out of WWII, Stalin would have been overthrown and would not have been able to arm Mao. Hitler would have found Mother Russia indigestible and his socialist empire would have fallen apart by 1950, if not sooner.

As far as the Japanese are concerned, they killed fewer Chinese than Mao, and they would have been less a threat than the ChiComms are now. Without the goading of FDR and our trade embargo, they would have had no quarrel with us.

"Since the British Empire was so evil, would you care to explain how it's dissolution lead to peace, prosperity, and universal brotherhood through out the world?

Do you mean the British Empire that introduced the international trade in opium, pushed us into WWI, abandoned its colonies in the Indian subcontinent and Africa to anarchy? The reference to civilian concentration camps was not gratuitous, it was practiced during the Boer War.

Gratuitousness is epitomized by your continual references to Clinton. Clinton, was and is, an ass. As indicated by my reference to glass, I did not have his half and quarter measures in mind.

As far as service is concerned, I put in my eight years of obligation that ended with nine months in France in '61-'62.

What seems to be the main point is that some on the Right are willing to make common cause with some on the Left to fight threats to American Sovereignty.

What concerned me about the article was learning that Buchanan had marched with the anti WTO group. Most of those groups pretend that they are against globalization, but in reality they have some really hard-core communist organizers who want to bring down all trade and all society so that they can once again create the Utopian Paradise here on earth.

You speculations on alternative histories are merely that, speculation. One can build all sorts of theortical possibilities since one does not have to be constrained in any practical sense.

"Do you mean the British Empire that introduced the international trade in opium, pushed us into WWI, abandoned its colonies in the Indian subcontinent and Africa to anarchy? The reference to civilian concentration camps was not gratuitous, it was practiced during the Boer War."

I was well aware of the concentration camps during the Boer War. I'm not historically illiterate. Focusing on a few reprehensible outcomes does not establish that the world would have been a better place without the British Empire or it's dissolution made this world better. Even you admit that it's removal from India and Africa produced unfortunate outcomes.

"Gratuitousness is epitomized by your continual references to Clinton. Clinton, was and is, an ass. As indicated by my reference to glass, I did not have his half and quarter measures in mind."

I was not referring to Clinton, per se, but to the idea that airpower or cruise missiles has evolved to the point that it can replace boots on the ground. After every war, we find that it has not. But, what did you have in mind, nuclear weapons?

"As far as service is concerned, I put in my eight years of obligation that ended with nine months in France in '61-'62."

Then my apologies. I made the same error you did. You beat me to active duty by about eight years. I did spend eight years active and another 14 in the Guard.

A blanket dismissal of my points of contention with those that are appologists of Brittish attrocities (being of Irish and Scottish descent, they remain evergreen), FDR, Stalin, and Mao does your creditability ill.

I was not referring to Clinton, per se, but to the idea that airpower or cruise missiles has evolved to the point that it can replace boots on the ground. After every war, we find that it has not. But, what did you have in mind, nuclear weapons?

We got 'em, let's use 'em. To quote a proponent of the Inquisition, "God will know His own".

"A blanket dismissal of my points of contention with those that are appologists of Brittish attrocities (being of Irish and Scottish descent, they remain evergreen), FDR, Stalin, and Mao does your creditability ill."

I didn't dismiss your arguments so much as to say that they remained unproven. I don't really expect you to prove them either. I'm not saying you cannot but recognizing the extent of the argument that would be necessary.

"We got 'em, let's use 'em. To quote a proponent of the Inquisition, "God will know His own"."

Granted that He will, but God will also call them in His own time. He doesn't need you or I to determine that time or the method of His calling. Since neither you nor I know who He is calling, I would suggest something a bit more discriminating since He just might resent our doing too much of the calling for Him.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.