Skip to comments.
Whose War Is this
The American Cause
| 9-27-01
| Pat Buchanan
Posted on 09/27/2001 9:09:59 AM PDT by ex-snook
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 181-191 next last
To: ex-snook
Although unimportant, make my signature the "neo conservitive" #42.
To: ouroboros
The necons simply added Israel's enemies to Osama bin Laden. How transparent.
To: ex-snook
Funny you mentioned that toilet paper of a book. I posted specific problems that I had with that book to your leader, Arator. He never replied back to me. That book was a public relations disaster for Buchanan. You must not watch the news much. Everyone was bashing him. Not just neocons.
103
posted on
09/27/2001 3:27:13 PM PDT
by
TKEman
To: sinkspur
Checkout this post to see how best to deal with Saddam. This is according to Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Weapons Inspector, Intelligence Officer for Gen. Schwartzchoff, Cold Warrior, Marine... not some policy wonk in Washington, D.C.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb15ee646fb.htm
To: cicero's_son
More Americans are going to die, Either/Or, regardless of what we do. If we fail to eradicate the threat, our losses may well be measured in the millions. The threat of terrorism can't be eradicated, because terrorists grow out of ordinary people. America can't control a billion muslims, and in an attempt to do so may create millions of more terrorists. America can, however, minimize the threat of terrorism.
To: kevkrom
Checkout this post to see how best to deal with Saddam. This is according to Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Weapons Inspector, Intelligence Officer for Gen. Schwartzchoff, Cold Warrior, Marine... not some policy wonk in Washington, D.C.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb15ee646fb.htm
Is the nuclear threat that real? According to Ritter, Absolutely not. We could have our weapons inspectors back in Iraq today if we wanted to.
To: madrussian
If a billion Muslims want to fight us, want to raise their sons and daughters to kill us, then so be it.
Despite what some people here are saying, we do have the means to deal with a billion enemies.
To: TKEman
Everyone was bashing him. Not just neocons. Define "everyone". Neocons, Neoliberals, and Liberals bashed Buchanan. No true conservative "bashed" Buchanan. They may have cut-and-ran and/or "distanced" themselves from Buchanan's unvarnished truth-telling but they didn't "bash". Neocons, more than Liberals even, were behind the Smear Buchanan campaign. Period.
To: Zviadist
Yes, I'm right on target. Thank you. Please name the analysts, etc., who didn't support Pat, and yet listen to his meanderings. Please. Do it.
Pat's washed up and done for. He has no following of any real depth and stature. None. I haven't seen Pat on TV at all since this crisis began. Ditto for Wellstone. I guess the serious leftists have left the field.
109
posted on
09/27/2001 3:38:12 PM PDT
by
TKEman
To: cicero's_son, AGAviator
If a billion Muslims want to fight us, want to raise their sons and daughters to kill us, then so be it. Funny how you are talking about them wanting to fight you whereas it's you who are talking about going there and fighting them. It pays to sort out who your enemies are first, and why. Before saying "if you are not with us, you are against us". That's the slogan the Bolsheviks used to slaughter millions of "enemies of the peple".
Despite what some people here are saying, we do have the means to deal with a billion enemies.
Do you really want to declare a billion people your enemies? I think this is exactly what the terrorists wanted.
To: madrussian
Can you make [the Saudis] eradicate financial support of jihads in the Balkans and Causasus by private persons? Not completely, but they will try. Arafat won't even try, and he has promised to. You bet there is no comparison, that is my point.
111
posted on
09/27/2001 3:44:26 PM PDT
by
annalex
To: madrussian
No, I do not want to declare a billion people our enemy. Where did you get such a notion?
On the other hand, I'm not willing to declare a billion people our "friends" either. I live in New York. I saw with my own eyes what they did here. And I will stay, even though I know these same people would love nothing more than to nuke us or hit us with a bio/chem attack.
Given the risks involved (the lives of millions of Americans), I expect people to prove their friendship and goodwill toward us. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then they are--as our President has said--our enemies.
Pretty clear, I think.
To: ouroboros
Even if I agreed with your analysis, I would still say it was all justified. I wouldn't necessarily call it a smear campaign. Pat's ideas are bad, as is fully demonstrated in his book. As I mentioned above, I posted a response regarding this to your leader, Arator, and he never got back to me. Additionally, Pat's a money grabber, taking my money to fund and fuel his crank ideas in a futile election quest. It all boomeranged on him. And yet this "campaign" is called a smear campaign.
113
posted on
09/27/2001 3:45:52 PM PDT
by
TKEman
To: kevkrom
Iraq must be taen care of now because we cannot allow them to develop any (more) nuclear or biologial weapons capability -- it would only be a matter of time before such weapons were used against us, as long as the current regime rules Iraq. You do err, my friend, if you think it is in the U.S. interests or desires to eliminate the "current regime" in Iraq. We only want to eliminate Saddam, but leave his regime in power (which are Sunni Moslem, spelled correctly?). It would be suicide to allow Saddam's opposition to gain power (the Shiites, which comprise approximately 60% of the Iraqi population), because they are the same Islamic fundamental extremists that we are currently waging a war of terror on.
Most Americans misunderstand this hypocritical stance of our Government. Saddam must go, not because he represents a true threat to national security, but because our Govt. sold him as the devil to the American public for war propaganda. Now, that our "incomplete" war is completed; how do we return things to normal so long as the devil remains?
Again, we don't want a change in the status quo in Iraq, just a change in who sits at the head of the table. Then we can get back to what really matters; buying Iraq's oil.
To: cicero's_son
Given the risks involved (the lives of millions of Americans), I expect people to prove their friendship and goodwill toward us. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then they are--as our President has said--our enemies. You forget that there are declared American enemies, like Iran or Iraq. And many more anti-American people in all "friendly" muslim countries. You can be pretty sure that Saddam will defy the US. They don't owe the allegiance to the US and bombing them without any evidence of their direct involvement in these attacks would have no justification.
To: madrussian
Iraq is firmly in the enemy's camp, true, and if it harbors terrorists then it becomes the target in this particular war, period, neocons, shmeocons. If Buchanan supports the policy of making war on countries that harbor terrorists, then he should have no problem with that policy being applied to Iraq, regardles of what the neocons think.
What Buchanan doesn't seem to grasp is that this war is not about him or the neocons.
116
posted on
09/27/2001 3:50:57 PM PDT
by
annalex
To: sinkspur
Those people may have been supported by Hussein, which means there'll be more terrorism shortly. And nukes.You're thesis makes no sense. Why would Saddam hire Islamic fundamentalists (who hate him) to attack the U.S.?
Saddam wants to survive. His goal is to get those sanctions lifted and get things back to the "good ol' days".
Why would he risk an ill-advised attack on America that ensures swift destruction for all culprits, including himself?
Saddam may be evil, but he's no fool.
To: annalex
I suspect the Saudis would have "tried" in the same way Arafat "tries". "There is no comparison" remark was about the nature of relationship, not characterization of the people. As far as I am concerned, the Saudi individuals have contributed to jihads more than relatively secular Iraq. "What-if" scenarios are just that: speculations.
To: madrussian
I don't need their allegiance, I just need to know that they are not going to continue killing my friends and neighbors. I need to know that they will not detonate a nuclear bomb in my city or release biological or chemical weapons in the United States.
It's nothing personal, madrussian, believe me. And I'm certainly not advocating carpet-bombing the middle east. However, if we discover that Iraq and/or Iran was involved in this, then those states will need to be dealt with harshly.
To: TKEman
To borrow Pat's line, the hell may be freezing over and he will be fighting the Weekly Standard on the ice. It's a journalist thing.
120
posted on
09/27/2001 3:54:31 PM PDT
by
annalex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 181-191 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson