Buchanan Asks, "What Do We Offer the World?"

WND.com ^ | 05-19-04 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

[Ohioan]

There is an immense difference between attacking America, and attacking the flawed moral perceptions of certain individuals.

And of course we need Islamic support to deal with an outlaw movement that recruits in the Islamic world.

For my view on the War on Terror, see War 2001--The Shortest, Surest Path To Victory. Obviously, the Administration with its projected idea of changing other people's cultures, is off on an other approach. That does not mean that those of us who disagree with that approach must stand mute, while we lose the War--or cause it to drag on indefinitely. Rather our duty is to point out its flaws, in an effort to mitigate the damage being done.

The comments of Perle and others, whom Pat attacks, are assinine. Pat, not his targets, is the patriot.

William Flax

[tpaine]

Robert_Paulson2:

I think Pat sounds more and more like Hitler.

______________________________________


Hitler was the leading exponent, in his time, of the idea of using armed force to impose your social values on other peoples. Pat is the exact opposite.

In this particular essay, he is assailing the idea that certain crack-pots--or what else can we call them--want to jeopardize the American future, by antagonizing a large slice of humanity, by trying to foist the absurd values of American Feminists on them.


597 Ohioan

______________________________________


I'm sorry, but a man who downs his own country, based on some others' choices to not live his idea of a "moral" life, and recommends "standing with Islam" therefore, is NOT a patriot. He is anti-American.
598 Long Cut

______________________________________



A. America is not in a war with Islam. We are at war with a particular outlaw internationalist movement, which happens to have Islamic origins; but that is not the same thing as being at war with Islam.

B. Pat is not saying that we should stand with Islam, except against the Feminist agenda, which would corrupt all human societies.

Read the essay, and put the remark that you are referring to in context.
599 Ohioan

______________________________________


I agree that it is over-hype to call Pat a 'Hitler', or anti-american.
-- Granted, he goes overboard in his moralistic zeal.


But I can agree in a limited sense with: --

-- "B". -- Pat is not saying that we should stand with Islammic beliefs, -- except those tenents against the ~SOCIALIST~ agenda, which would corrupt all human societies.

[af_vet_1981]

It is based upon the supposed religious convictions of the Founders,

Unnamed sources close to the Founding Fathers are reporting that the overwhelming majority of of them do not identify with the Moslems, Buddhists, Secular Humanists, Homosexuals, Socialists, or Atheists.

[Long Cut]

True. But nonetheless, their personal religious convictions, and depth of faith, have been the subject of some discussion. Jefferson, for example, was a Deist.

Still, they did not deign to write a Constitution or Declaration of Independance which endorsed any specific faith, and in fact wrote the First Amendment to the Bill Of Rights in such a way as to proscribe a government-sponsored "official" religion.

Nowhere in either document is the name "Jesus" mentioned, nor is "Christianity". The Constitution, the only one of the two documents with the force of law, has no religious mentions whatsoever, and the Declaration mentions a "Creator" but once, and not in any specific setting.

[x]

Well said. I get the feeling, though, that people are aiming at Buchanan as a symbol, rather than considering what he says. From a strictly empirical point of view, there is something in what he says: it is going to be hard for us to preach moral modernization if others see some of its unpleasant results in our own society. One doesn't have to believe that past generations were a golden age or that minorities should be oppressed to see that the message of Krauthammer and others isn't going to go over well in more traditional societies, given what's happened in the West.

And it's not clear that the division runs as some would have it -- between nostalgic reactionary Pat idealizing the bad old days, and forward-looking modern moralists who accept the present. For one of the defenses or excuses in this last scandal has been to blame the conduct in the prison precisely on modern morals or on pornography or on homosexuals. In other words, some of those who are the harshest on Buchanan, adopt views very similar to his when it suits their purpose. This suggests that there's more to his take on things than many will give him credit for.

[tpaine]

Unnamed sources close to the Founding Fathers are reporting that the overwhelming majority of of them do not identify with the Moslems, Buddhists, Secular Humanists, Homosexuals, Socialists, or Atheists.
603 af-vet

_____________________________________


Nor did they 'identify' with over zealous religious views in the administering of our local,state or federal governments.
Check out Article VI, and the "no religious Test" phrase.

Case closed.

[CWOJackson]

Great post LC. Amazing how some folks who are constantly harping on the Constitution want to conveniently forget what's in it at times...or in buchanan's and his disciples cases, what's not.

[CWOJackson]

"...that people are aiming at Buchanan as a symbol..."

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm aiming at buchanan the arse, buchanan the hack, buchanan the washed up bitter man who sold out his creditability in the last election.

[ninenot]

You have already observed that rational discourse is at a premium on this thread.

Agreed.

PJB's cautions and prophesies go unheard and misunderstood by some. They assume a risk by ignoring him or engaging in mindless name-calling.

Their risk, not ours.

[Ohioan]

PJB's cautions and prophesies go unheard and misunderstood by some. They assume a risk by ignoring him or engaging in mindless name-calling.

Their risk, not ours.

Except that so long as there is no common sense on these issues within the Beltway, we are all at risk. Nothing could be more stupid than trying to foist not only "Democracy" where it is not applicable, but Feminism on other peoples, and not expect to inflame hatred against America. Nothing could be more stupid that confirming your enemies worst slanders, which is precisely what our present policy seems bent on doing, in a number of particulars.

I deal with some of this in my essay on post conquest Iraq, Iraq--Tactical Folly, Strategic Madness. I was working on a sequel, but more or less abandoned the idea, when the Administration made some statements within the past week or so, which sounded as though they are waking up. One can only pray that they are. I do not like having to attack Republicans. But make no mistake, America comes first.

William Flax

[rrrod]

Time for your med and a little nap PAT!

[Ohioan]

Thank you for bumping my comments, however smart-alecked, your style.

Instead of the hate driven approach that you advocate, I will counter with another appeal to common sense, War 2001--The Shortest, Surest Path To Victory!. Of course, it is not for you. You think we win wars by antagonizing everyone is sight (with reference to your biographical page where you are boycotting France and Germany). But America's young warriors are not your playthings. Every normal person wants to win this battle as quickly and as painlessly as possible.

William Flax

[rrrod]

Your knowlege of me is most impressive....LOL is the best I can do.

[Ohioan]

Thanks for the further bump. Here is an essay that specifically addresses the smear campaign that was launched against Pat Buchanan in 1999--the one some of you keep parroting: Fair Play For Pat Buchanan.

While the essay acknowledges some disagreements with Buchanan, it is basically laudatory as to his character, so you should enjoy it.

[rrrod]

sorry I have no interest in Buchanan

[zbigreddogz]

The bigger question is 'What does Buchannan offer to ANYBODY?!?!'

I lost all of the little respect I had for the man in 2000.

[ninenot]

You might wish to take a look at www.stratfor.com for some very interesting analysis of the situation in Iraq.

[iconoclast]

Why doesn't it?

It's a bloody shame individuals aren't banned for stupidity.

This forum could be returned to preeminence in a fortnight.

[Robert_Paulson2]

for your edification.

---

in order to please society or Allah, god.

Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said, in his book al-Mughni:

"Circumcision is obligatory for men, and it is an honour for women, but it is not obligatory for them.This is the opinion of many scholars. (Imam) Ahmad said: For men it is more strictly required, but for women it is less strictly required." (al-Mughni 1/70).

Circumcision of the female consists of the removal of a part of the clitoris, which is situated above the opening of the urethra. The Sunnah is not to remove all of it, but only a part. (al-Mawsu‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah 19/28).

In this matter, it is wise to follow the interests of the female: if the clitoris is large, then part of it should be removed, otherwise it should be left alone. This size of the clitoris will vary from woman to woman, and there may be differences between those from hot climates and those from cold climates.

A hadith on the topic of female circumcision has been attributed to the Prophet (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon Him), according to which he said: "Circumcision is a Sunnah for men, and an honour for women,"

---

and that is a MODERATE approach.
I imagine that you can see well that I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. Go sell the "Islam treats women right" garbage elsewhere... I will NEVER buy it.

I also know and have known several ISLAMIC women, who were married to these abusive clowns. I actually believe EVERY evil word I hear of Islam... and nothing of it's "virtues".

And the "no Islam doesn't really support this" stuff, is a waste of time with me.

You can side with IDIOT pat and his Islamic friends against American Hollywood (after all hollywood is soooo evil)... if you want. I will NEVER. I am fully persuaded that Islam as a whole, is an abusive death/murder, "honor killing" cult.

NOTHING is in it of redemptive value as far as I am concerned. You can enjoy the beauties of Islam, at YOUR OWN PERIL.