Posted on 01/26/2007 5:07:17 AM PST by NapkinUser
Buchanan is, of course, exactly right.
So does old Pat still have that stick up his butt?
Pat has long since hit the flush button on his political and intellectual life.
Islamism is starting to look to me more like an adolescent cry for help by acting out than anything else.
Pat declares that if we "leave them (middle easterners) alone" and get out of their part of the world (presumably to exploit, enslave, and slaughter among themselves) "they" won't hate us. And oh by the way, let Israel "go gently into the good night"?
How utterly absurdly simplistic.
Of course Buchanan is right! So was Hitler! It's all the Jews fault! And, of course, we capitalist, imperialists who do their bidding....
Gimme a BREAK. This thinking will destroy our country.
JDale
And so are you.
Within 5 weeks, 3,000 Americans had died for Korean freedom
Within 6 months, 14,000 Americans had died for Korean freedom.
Within one year, 20,000+ Americans had died for Korean freedom.
Within 2+ years (when Truman stepped down) 30,000 Americans had died. That's ten times as many Americans as have died in Iraq.
Millions of South Koreans were saved from starvation and slavery under North Korea's dictator.
It's "cool to say we should avoid "foreign" entanglements, but it takes less time, nowdays, to get from the Middle East to the US than it took, in 1790, to get from Philadelphia to New York.
Americans in Iraq are getting good training in fighting terrorists and insurgents in cities. The more we learn about this type of fighting, the better.
Pat doesn't seem to realize that we no longer live in the 1790's.
A missile can travel to the US from anywhere in the world in less time, today, than an army could travel from Philadephia to New York in 1800.
It's a small world, after all.
What is Bush doing? The America that won the Cold War said ideology be damned, we stand by our friends.I think Pat's focus on ideology is misplaced. His point is well-taken though that "if we bleed our country to give the men and women of the Middle East the freedom to choose the society they wish to live in, are we sure they will not choose a society where Sharia is law?""The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies," said Bush.
But if we bleed our country to give the men and women of the Middle East the freedom to choose the society they wish to live in, are we sure they will not choose a society where Sharia is law? In liberated Afghanistan, popular sentiment was behind beheading that Muslim who converted to Christianity.
What leads Bush to believe everyone wants to be like us? Is it not ideology?
No, Pat, they are not. They are over here, because they've already taken over, over there. They want the same thing Samuel Gompers wanted: "MORE".
Pat, since you're supposed to be Catholic, I've got one more word for you: "Lepanto".
If you want to read a fascinating book that fleshes this idea out with much research from many disciplines, read H. Bloom, the Lucifer principle. A Pakistani internet acquaintance told me the West has 80% of the wealth, so why doesn't the US Congress just vote to send money to the people of Pakistan, sort of like hitting up your dad for an allowance.
And since you're supposed to be Catholic, I'll leave you with this thought: one result of the American invasion of Iraq is that up to half of all Iraqi Christians (mostly Chaldean Christians in communion with Rome) have been forced to flee the country, and elements of sharia law are now enshrined in the Iraqi constitution. Oh, and this: the war was denounced both by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But I suppose that, to you, they are just pseudo-Catholics, like Buchanan.
Don John of Austria was fighting to defend Christendom from Moslem attacks, not to bring "democracy" to the Islamic world, where such foolishness will only empower the Islamists, as it has in Iraq.
You can 'suppose' anything you like. It's (still) a (more-or-less) free country. You're wrong of course, but that's your problem.
Your attack on Buchanan is quite strange, given your tagline, since Buchanan wrote a book, "The Death of the West," arguing that the West is indeed aborting, contracepting, and buggering itself out of existence, and describing "Humanae Vitae" as prophetic. But because Buchanan agrees with the current and former Pope on Iraq, he's just a "supposed" Catholic.
Attack? Dude ... where's my dictionary? I disagreed with him. That's allowed in this (still, more or less) free country.
Saying that Buchanan is "supposed" to be a Catholic qualifies as an attack on the sincerity of his religious beliefs in my book. That's what annoyed me, not disagreeing with him on Iraq.
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.