Posted on 05/28/2013 2:36:07 PM PDT by neverdem
Buchanan always puts the interests of America first, don’t you wish everyone did. Involvement in war in this area is not in America’s interest. If they want to kill each other, get out of the way.
I know quite a few criticize PB here but he generally makes points worthy of consideration that have some context, logic, and reason. I’d rate this historical recounting of how we got here among his better efforts. It seems we, the US, have again bumped into Winston Churchill’s legacy, just as we did in Iraq. There can be no doubt that WC cast a long shadow across the 20th Century affairs of the world but it is interesting how his influence persists into the 21st Century. For both good and ill, a rare man.
I’m certainly not allying myself with Obama but rather with common sense when I say we just allow Syria to devolve as it will, perhaps as H.G. Wells described. The previous poster was spot on about “tar baby”. At most, we should ensure Israel’s continued security (a point of my departure with PB) but not with American blood.
Buchanan praises Obama for wanting to stay out of Middle East conflicts, but is that actually the case?
We are, I hope, a Christian nation. We are therefore supposed to convert the heathens to Christianity. THEN, the ex-murderous savages, having been saved, can better find find democracy on their own. This where GW and the Bushes went wrong.
Example: Islam and democracy are not compatible.
We don’t need this new war. We didn’t need the last one.
With the King of Saudi dead, we will have enough trouble.
Has he?
I think Buchanan is a bit optimistic ... Bam-Bam appears to desire an alliance with the muslim brotherhood.
Dishonest reading of current history.
“President Obama is to be commended for resisting neocon and liberal interventionist clamors to get us into yet another open-ended war. “
Except Pat, Obama instigated the overthrow of Egypt and Libya and Syria as well. So Obama can get screwed.
Buchanan - read his article and he outs himself as a bald-faced anti-american liar. An agreement between the British, the French, and with silent approval of the Soviets. And Buchanan blames it on Woodrow Wilson and the U.S. I can find no evidence Wilson and the U.S. I am no great fan of Wilson. But Buchanan is pure and simply lying to promote his communist anti-U.S. agenda. Why doesn’t he move to one of the countries he likes - Russia, Germany, Palestinian encampments. I’d much prefer him to lie from there.
The world is paying a heavy price today for late 19th and early 20th century European Adventurism.
"Rebels" is such a romantic word. Robert E. Lee, George Washington, Garibaldi ... none of whom massacred IIRC the Christians or anyone else when they captured a town or won a battle. These filthy bastards are not "rebels," they are jihadists. I stand with Team Putin on this one. No matter how bad Assad is, he is better than what That Mombasa MF is trying to put in their place.
By the way, I and a whole bunch of McCain's contemporaries can testify to this man's idiocy, ineptitude, lack of character, and unfitness for public office. When the North Vietnamese captured this incredibly inept pilot and all-around hell-raiser, a sigh of relief went through the Naval Air Service.
He never puts the United States first. The man hates the U.S, and all it stands. His apologies for Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Hitler, Arafat make me sick.
1916. No Soviets. The tsar was still around.
He doesn't blame Sykes-Picot on Wilson. Quite the opposite, he says it contradicted Wilson's ideas.
I'm not sure if borders actually are going to change now, but at this point, getting involved doesn't look like a good idea.
One hour documentary detailing British double dealing during the first world war and its effects on the ME.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdWiT42qM8
Let’s start with the proposition that Bashar Assad is a horrible, brutal dictator.
The rebels are worse. Tehre is a long pattern in US foreign policy, going back at least to China in the 1940s and running through Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Egypt, and other countries of intervening to topple a nasty but friendly dictator to replace him with a more brutal and unfriendly regime. We should not make the same mistake in Syria.
Pat’s commendation of Obama is misplaced. Obama desperately wants to get involved to topple Assad, but like Woodrow Wilson and LBJ, he wants it to look like he was forced in by a provocation.
Pat is dead right that our involvement in Libya led to the slaughter of four Americans in Benghazi, and the Republicans need to say so. This is yet another reason why we should not get involved in Syria.
But as Pat says, it’s not our war.
When I was in high school, someone asked me who I thought would win if the Soviet Union went to war with Red China. Without hesitation, I said, “We would.”
“No, you don’t understand,” my friend said. “The war is between the Soviets and the Chinese. We’re not involved.”
“That’s exactly why we would win,” I said. “We just watch our enemies destroy each other.”
“Buchanan praises Obama for wanting to stay out of Middle East conflicts, but is that actually the case?”
No, but like Wilson, he wants to make it look that way, while doing the opposite.
John McCain is the biggest doofus in the Republican Party. He's a clueless fool.
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.