Pat Buchanan sounds off on Iran nuclear negotiations

Fox News ^ | 4/1/2015 | Fox News

[Usagi_yo]

Hope the link works

Video at link.

[Olog-hai]

I did say “world” wars. When the words “pragmatic” and “appeasement” remain linked with respect to the second one of those, my instinct is to reject the former word on that basis. Also, “pragmatism” and “realpolitik” remain linked, which brings in the word “Machiavellianism”.

[Olog-hai]

Yup, as dead as Pat’s credibility. (especially after watching the video)

[nathanbedford]

Sorry, I misread your post and did not recognize that you meant the two world wars.

I'm not sure I understand your historical point of view:

America's involvement in the first world war was of questionable national interest. The freedom of the seas and the ability to trade with European nations was as much compromised by the British surface Navy as it was by German submarines yet it was the submarine warfare which disturbed Americans.

Of course, there was the Zimmerman telegram which was certainly a causus belli but which many historians now believe did not actually motivate American policymakers to enter the war. In any event, there is a significant question about whether it would have been better for the Germans to have won that war in view of the terrible consequences which ensued. After all, there is some likelihood that the result of a German victory would have been similar to the German victory in the Franco-Prussian war rather than the travesty of the Versailles treaty.

As to World War II, I do not believe that there was any strong or effective political force on either side of the aisle that would have gotten us into the war sooner than Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor swept all objections aside. We must remember, however, that there was little knowledge of Nazi atrocities early on in the war. So I'm not sure a moral dimension comes into play in the actual historic circumstances. In retrospect, we think of World War II as the good war-and it was-but I'm not sure our motives were "moral" in the sense that we were going to make the world safe for Jews or other oppressed peoples at the time rather I think they were motivated by an instinct to survive. One questions whether it was more moral to fight the Nazis or the Soviets but I leave that for another day.

I do not deny either the power or the righteousness of the moral factor I just do not want to see realism swept aside.

[thesligoduffyflynns]

I think this Farley fellow sums up the meaning of the word pragmatic and realpolitik because appeasement will never work & most likely we’re headed where what Farley is describing if Junior continues to us down the path of de-stabilisation and eventual destruction it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this out.
Oh and btw, I’ll wager Junior’s exit act from the Hut will have the US economy over a barrel and it won’t be oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nhgfjrKi0o

[Olog-hai]

Since so-called realism justifies evil more than it affirms good, perhaps it must be indeed swept aside.

There was no question about the need to go to war even before 1917. No question whatsoever. Even worse, the degradation of US morality during Wilson’s day (the same re-elected on the slogan of “He Kept Us Out Of War” even in the face of the shameful lack of of punishment for what happened to the Lusitania—compare Washington’s affirmation that the USA must be “at all times ready for war”) shows up the subjectivity of so-called “realism”, never mind its other fallibilities.

[nathanbedford]

you might be interested in the writings of Carl Schmitt, himself a Nazi, who advocated realism in the relationship between nation states because he believed that the liberal impulse inevitably led to the demonization of the enemy and thus inevitably lead to unrestricted war and atrocities because the enemy had to be Dehumanized in order to justify war to the liberal mind.

Ironically, his writing seemed to have contributed to Nazi Germany's atrocities while he professed to seek the opposite result.

[nathanbedford]

From a moral or humanitarian point of view, the British surface blockade of foodstuffs into the Central Powers caused far more suffering and death than did German submarine warfare.

The Lusitania was actually carrying ammunition and was warned. It was in fact a fair target. In any event, it did not lead to American entry into the war upon it sinking but America entered the war later when submarine warfare was resumed. From a purely humanitarian or moral point of view, the British surface quarantine was worse and certainly cost American business more money but the British propaganda machine was far more effective especially in the wake of the German atrocities in Belgium.

I argue these points of history not for their own sake but to demonstrate that neither realism nor moral considerations are all that clear-cut, even in hindsight. One should never be abandoned for the other.

[SkyPilot]

Pat calls Iranian threats to wipe Israel off the map as mere "Beer Talk" and negates them.

Pat is a Jew and Israel hater. He thinks the Catholic church "replaced" God's covenant with Israel (as if God goes back on His Word). What a sad man.

[JewishRighter]

WFB,Jr. settled the question of Pat Buchanan’s anti-semitism in his lengthy essay “In Search of Anti-Semitism” back in 1991. Buchanan has done nothing since to alter that conclusion. In fact, he has consistently reinforced it. I don’t relish labeling him as an anti-semite because, besides that serious defect, Buchanan has always been an incisive conservative analyst on the domestic side.

[pallmallman]

Used to like Buchanan before I realized what a dirty anti Semite he was/is.

[rbmillerjr]

Buchannon seems to be an Israel hater. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed him support Israel in any way.

One thing is clear. His foreign policy framework is not of the Reagan Administration ilk. His thinking is flawed and gullible regarding enemies such as Iran.

His perspective if that of an uber isolationist Ron Paulista.

[SunkenCiv]

http://451world.com/i4/hitler.html

...In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler’s anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was “an individual of great courage...Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.” (The Guardian, 1/14/92)

Writing of “group fantasies of martyrdom,” Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: “Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody.” (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan’s columns have run in the Liberty Lobby’s Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction. Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was “running down 70-year-old camp guards.” (New York Times, 4/21/87)

Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan — despite protests — to visit Germany’s Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were “Americans first” — and repeatedly scrawled the phrase “Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews” in his notebook. Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan’s line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were “victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.” (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)

After Cardinal O’Connor criticized anti-Semitism during the controversy over construction of a convent near Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote: “If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O’Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him ‘there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic’...he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith.” (New Republic, 10/22/90)

The Buchanan ‘96 campaign’s World Wide Web site included an article blaming the death of White House aide Vincent Foster on the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad — and alleging that Foster and Hillary Clinton were Mossad spies. (The campaign removed the article after its existence was reported by a Jewish on-line news service; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2/21/96.)

[Usagi_yo]

Filterless cigarettes are so gay.

[JewishRighter]

IIRC, Buckley’s argument was based on observations that, in every question touching Israel or Jews, Buchanan was always against Israel and/or Jews.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

There was no question about the need to go to war even before 1917. No question whatsoever.

If a genie were to pop up today and offer me the chance of living in a 2015 world in which the Schlieffen plan had succeeded a century earlier, I'd think it over.

On the "bad" side, you have Kaiser Bill, admittedly a neurotic, bigoted twit, marching in triumph through Paris.

On the "good" side, you have Joseph Stalin spending the rest of his life as a stoolie for the Okhrana.

You have Adolf Hitler going back to a career as a postcard painter.

And there must be something else I'm forgetting.....oh yeah!!! There's those 7-8 million young men that get to marry and raise families. Some of those boys will turn out bad, but it's hard to turn out worse than as a rotting corpse jammed into the muddy wall of a trench.

Hey Genie, I'll go for it!!!

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

British propaganda machine was far more effective especially in the wake of the German atrocities in Belgium.

When talking about the German atrocities in Belgium, I think it's fair to give the Congolese a chance to chime in with their point of view :-)

[odawg]

“Used to like Buchanan before I realized what a dirty anti Semite he was/is.”

“Dirty”? Really? If Buchanan is anti-Semite, which I don’t think he is, how is your attitude any different?

[Olog-hai]

I’m talking about the period between 5/17/1915 and 4/6/1917—712 days when acts of war against the USA went unpunished, never mind Wilson’s overtly dovish re-election campaign. What was “pragmatic” about not only leaving the Lusitania unavenged, never mind campaigning on keeping the USA out of a war it tried to run away from? or rather, what was noble about it? Looks to me like pragmatism leads to war instead of stopping it.

[pallmallman]

Really now,..how about with the “Treblinka wasn’t an extermination camp”, “there were no gas chambers there”, defending Demjanjuk, ...damn near every time he gets a chance he comes out either against Jews in general, or Israel in particular. I used to be a big fan of his...and voted for him when he ran for President,...but in the years since, he’s become unhinged, really.

[odawg]

I’ve done some reading on the internet about Buchanan. I am no expert on Buchanan, just a fan.

1. Treblinka - He evidently did not say there were no gas chambers or it wasn’t an extermination camp; he merely took issue with the supposed method, which was said to be diesel emissions. I believe he walked that back.

2. Demjanjuk - he thought the guy was probably innocent.

“Buchanan has adamantly denied that he is antisemitic, and a number of conservatives and his journalistic colleagues, some of them Jewish, including Jack Germond, Al Hunt, and Mark Shields, have defended him against the charge.” - Wikipedia

I think Buchanan would certainly admit to being critical of Jews in certain situations, but as Thomas Sowell wrote (not about this subject) it is dangerous to place any group above criticism.

Look at how the Left is twisting the motivation for Christian religious objections.