Posted on 03/15/2003 4:55:33 PM PST by Willie Green
There's no quicker way to turn conservatives into a bunch of snarling wolves than to mention his name.
Whatever he wrote is immediately tossed out the window, attacks & insults follow shortly thereafter.
I still remember some of the primary battle flamewars surrounding him. Man alive, I have never seen such hate for anyone as I have towards Pat Buchannan.
He rivals Bill Clinton in this department.
Have you talked to any Iraqi refugees lately? They've been begging us to do this for 6 years. What do you think got Clinton involved in 1998? Either way, though, when a dictator kills 2 million of his own people, invades two neighbors, shoots at US planes enforcing safe-zones, defies every order to stand down, and uses revenues specifically ear-marked for food and medicine to build palaces and forbidden weapons, we don't have to wait to hear their tortured pleas for mercy. We have substantial certainty that they are screaming from their cells. (Or do you wait to extinguish a neighbor's burning home until after you hear his kids crying for help?)
Stability in the Middle East? We're infidels; we're going to attack muslims, in a muslim country, surrounded by muslim countries, we're going to bomb and kill muslims, muslim women, muslim children, we're going send our infidel military to occupy muslim cities and villages and (you can not convince them otherwise) muslim mosques, and they have no doubt we are going to impose our infidel values and morals on muslims.
Gee, we liberated Kuwait, and they cheereed. We liberated the Afghani people from the Taliban, and they cheered. We've been feeding the starving of Afghanistan and Iraq for years, and they are happy to get it... and they see who really cares about them. When your child is starving before your eyes, and some jack-ass says it's Allah's will while his enemy gives your child food, who do you really want to lead you?
A lowered threat of access to WMDs by terrorists regimes? Negligable. Hussein would have supplied these weapons already if he had wanted to.
True, but we might as well get whatever's left, to minimize the number, and make it a finite supply.
Assinate Hussein and nobody will care, but war on Iraq and the whole region will feel that lash.
*BIG smile* Why, yes, that would be the case, now wouldn't it? HMPH! Whatever shall we do about THAT?!?
In case you hadn't noticed, it isn't only Iraq's leadership who has been organizing "Death to America" rallies, subsidizing terrorists, giving terrorists cover from prosecution, giving terrorists cover for training, executing/arresting/burning Christians/Jews/Hindus, and starving their own people. If we have to make a few more moves while we happen to have the tools in place, so be it! Iran's mullahs should fall easily, since half of the nation has been marching and protesting their rule for years. Syria's leadership will be easy to topple, and the infestations of terrorist camps are numerous (and this will also free Lebanon, now occupied for 25 years against UN resolutions). Saudi Arabia and Egypt... I can only hope they attack us, because they are the sources of most terrorists (including all 19 WTC mass murderers), but they are usually slick enough to make the just right diplomatic moves to stay alive. Jordan has been reasonable and non-offensive for years, and would be a great candidate for providing a ruling structure for the region. Turkey has been struggling with a mostly-Muslim population in a mostly-Western geo-political region, and should be left to continue that path. Pakistan... Muslim and nuclear... I'd sleep easier if they weren't in The Club, but they've shown that they are not willing to use or sell them thus far, which is all that can be asked of any member.
Wait until a month after the war, then see if you can say that. Early indications from the Spanish are that there is proof.
has never used WMD's on any but his own.
He used them on Iranian troops in their war.
Old "Uncle Adolph" possessed the finest military machine in the known world at that time
No, it wasn't "known at the time", and the League of Nations was bent on keeping it from being so.
Saddam has nothing that could compare, and is a threat to the Middle East, which has not our vital interests at stake.
Oil is a nationally critical resource.
Get Osama? You bet! But Saddam is the wrong move at the wrong time. This little venture will end up costing us more than we can imagine.
Exactly how would it cost more than going after Osama? The Iraqi troops are not going to inflict any great losses. The terrorists are the only wildcards to worry about, and they would respond the same if we went after Osama alone.
Just look to antiquity to see what fate befalls every empire that attempted to enforce it's will upon the globe.
Gee, a few hundred years or peace, and then they're gone. What a horrible fate.
As far as Israel is concerned, isn't $3 billion in aid yearly enough? Do we have to bleed our selves' white for them also?
Bleed ourselves white?? Desert Storm took less then 400 of our troops. Apparently, you don't have much of a clue what true national sacrifice is. In WWII, we lost 300,000 (out of 150 million), and nobody dared to say that we "bled ourselves white" (especially with similarly-populated Russia sacrificing 25 million total lives, 9 million military personnel, and a siginifcant part of that number just to stop Hitler at Stalingrad)
Either Pat Buchanan has not read the history of Charles Lindbergh's involvement with America First -- and of that organization -- or he has read it but failed to pay attention.
The same comment, of course, applies to you. There are dozens of books on the subject of the America Firsters. For that matter, such information can be obtained on the Internet with a few clicks of a mouse.
Well Billybob, as you should know, PJB is extremely well versed in American history. So I'm sure he's quite familiar with Charles Lindberg and the America First Committee. But just so that others may know of your biases, the libertarians at The Future of Freedom Foundation have provided a fairly objective analysis of that organization's role in our history.
The America First Committee
by Sheldon Richman, April 1995One of the most remarkable episodes in American history was the spontaneous and widespread opposition to Franklin Roosevelt's obvious attempts to embroil the United States in the European war that broke out in 1939. That opposition was centered in the America First Committee. In modern accounts of the war period, the committee is either ignored or maligned as a pro-fascist, anti-Semitic organization. It was nothing of the kind.
The America First Committee had its origins at Yale University Law School in 1940, where R. Douglas Stuart Jr. and other students began circulating a petition with the intention of establishing a national organization of college students opposed to intervention in the European war. (This account is based on historian Justus D. Doenecke's highly valuable book, In Danger Undaunted: The Anti-Interventionist Movement of 1940-1941 as Revealed in the Papers of the America First Committee , Hoover Institution, 1990.) As an undergraduate student at Princeton, Stuart had concluded that America's intervention in World War I had cost the nation dearly. He did not want the mistake repeated. In his initial organizing efforts, he was joined by Gerald R. Ford, who would become president of the United States in 1974, and Potter Stewart, who would be named to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1958. (Before long, Ford would resign from the committee for fear of losing his job as assistant football coach at Yale.) The petition was their response to President Roosevelt's series of actions that violated America's neutrality. "We demand that Congress refrain from war, even if England is on the verge of defeat," the petition stated.
What had Roosevelt done to this point? When Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939 and Britain and France declared war, Roosevelt affirmed America's neutrality. "Within three weeks, however," writes Doenecke, "he urged Congress to remove an arms embargo that had been one of the linchpins of U.S. neutrality legislation." Congress acceded. That erosion of neutrality spurred the Yale students, who quickly sought supporters outside the ranks of college students.
Meetings with some Chicago businessmen led to plans for a large-scale organization. In July 1940, General Robert E. Wood, chairman of the board of Sears, Roebuck, agreed to become acting chairman. (Wood had earlier supported the New Deal, but then broke with Roosevelt. He was less anti-interventionist than others in the new committee.) In late August, the group adopted the name the America First Committee (AFC).
In its first public statement (September 4, 1940), the AFC enunciated four precepts:
- The United States must build an impregnable defense for America;
- No foreign powers, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America;
- American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war;
- "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
The statement went on to specify four objectives. First, the AFC would "bring together all Americans, regardless of possible differences on other matters, who see eye-to-eye on these principles." Parenthetically it added, "This does not include Nazis, Fascists, Communists, or members of other groups that place the interests of any other nation above those of our own." Second, the AFC would "urge Americans to keep their heads amid the rising hysteria in times of crisis." Third, it would "provide sane leadership" for the majority of Americans who were opposed to intervention. Fourth, it would "register this opinion with the President and the majority of Congress."
The Committee attracted some prestigious members or sympathizers from business, journalism, politics, publishing, and the arts. Its best-known member was aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. (He was unfairly accused of anti-Semitism as a result.) They did not all agree on every issue. Some sympathizers would decline to join or were forced to resign, apparently under pressure from interventionists. AFC member and actress Lillian Gish said she was blacklisted from film and theater and offered a $65,000 movie contract if she resigned.
It seems that government snooping and the Hollywood blacklist did not begin as anticommunist tactics — Roosevelt had the FBI investigate the AFC.
Not everyone was welcome in the AFC. Among the national committee members who were ousted were builder and American Olympic Association president Avery Brundage, who was suspected of having Nazi sympathies, and Henry Ford, who had previously espoused anti-Semitism.
One of the most important members was John T. Flynn, chairman of the New York chapter and a national committeeman. Flynn was a prominent muckraking journalist who exposed big business's connections to the New Deal. For example, he demonstrated that the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (which began under Herbert Hoover) was little more than a bailout scheme for big banks and railroads. He was a columnist for the New Republic until it dropped him because of his anti-interventionist position. No one was more vigilant about keeping fascists out of the AFC than Flynn. At one huge public rally in New York City, he identified a local fascist in the crowd and told him he was not welcome.
The audience expressed such hostility to the man that the police surrounded him for his own protection. Despite Flynn's efforts, some fascists and anti-Semites managed to participate in the committee. Flynn went on to write an extremely important book, As We Go Marching , one of the best discussions of the nature of German and Italian fascism and its similarity to the New Deal.
In its day-to-day business, the AFC challenged Roosevelt's and the Congress's war-related measures (Lend-Lease, the destroyers-for-bases exchange with Britain, the occupation of Iceland, the Atlantic Charter, aid to the Soviet Union, the extension of the draft) and rebutted each argument made for direct or indirect involvement in the war. In pamphlets, radio broadcasts, and public meetings, AFC spokesmen rejected the interventionists' case that a German victory or Japan's conquests would put the United States at an economic disadvantage or lead to war later.
The AFC issued a series of talking points for its speakers bureau — short answers to common questions about America and the war. For example, to the question, "What, strictly on the basis of our own national interests, should our part [in the war] be?" AFC responded:
It is difficult, of course, to define our national interests, but it is always safe to assume that our chief national interest is the maintenance of our democracy and the well-being of our own American people. . . . Since experience has taught us that democracy vanishes in wartime, it would seem that the surest way to keep our form of government is to avoid involvement. We should also seek an adequate national defense to make sure that we can maintain our territorial integrity in the event we are attacked by a foreign power.
To the question (often asked today), "Isn't it part of our responsibility as a world power to take a hand in settling problems that menace world peace and security?" the AFC said:
We have no responsibilities that our people do not wish to undertake. We have no international commitments, agreed to by the people or their representatives, outside this hemisphere. Even if we did, it would not be a signal for going to war everytime [ sic ] there was one. Americans naturally wish security and peace for the rest of the world, but it is not entirely within their powers to bring these things about.
Other publications refuted the claims that a victorious Hitler could fight a large-scale war against the United States in the Western Hemisphere and that the United States could be strangled by foreign control of raw materials. To that still often-heard allegation (consult the recent Persian Gulf War propaganda), the AFC noted that "since we are the greatest raw material market in the world, [Hitler] would only be cutting off his nose to spite his face if he successfully withheld raw materials from us."
On December 7, 1941, after prolonged U.S. economic warfare, Japan attacked the U.S. Navy's Pacific fleet at Hawaii. On December 8, Congress declared war on Japan. On December 11, the national committee of the America First Committee voted to disband the organization. The statement issued to the public stated:
Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained.
The national committee expressed hope that prosecution of the war would not interfere with "the fundamental rights of American citizens" and that "secret treaties committing America to imperialistic aims or vast burden in other parts of the world shall be scrupulously avoided."
Its final words urged its followers to fully support the war effort: "The time for military action is here."
Sheldon Richman is senior editor at the Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., and the author of Separating School & State: How to Liberate America's Families , published by The Future of Freedom Foundation.
OK, Billybob. At your suggestion, I've provided proof of your superficial ad hominem attack. Such tactics were practiced even back in the '30s by the Roosevelt New Deal Socialists, Communists, Trade Unionists and Wilsonian globalists. It's basicly the same smear tactics that's employed by the leftwing 'Rats of today, the Klintons, Daschles, Jesse Jacksons, etc. etc.
You've picked a filthy bed to sleep in, Billybob-bob.
But that was your choice.
The liberal smear machine is quite adept at character assassination and will attack anybody who threatens their agenda. They're doing their best to sink their fangs into Miguel Estrada right now, because he's not Hispanic enough for them. The "high-tech lynnching" of Clarence Thomas is also infamous, as was the demonization of Newt Gingrich.
The AFC favored strengthening of OUR OWN neglected military defense capabilities rather than financing the agenda of foreign nations.
Furthermore, by tactically aligning themselves with the progressive and communist anti-war movement, they strengthened and gave cover to these groups.
So called "progressives" and communists were aligned with Roosevelt. They were advocates of supplying foreign aid to the utopian workers paradise of the Stalinist Soviet Union.
But thanks for coming forth and demonstrating the absolute idiocy of liberal revisionism.
So called "progressives" and communists were aligned with Roosevelt. They were advocates of supplying foreign aid to the utopian workers paradise of the Stalinist Soviet Union.
Bald lie. Note the years, here. From 1939 until June 1941, the Nazis and Soviets were carving up Europe together. The Commies were vocal anti-war andti-military activists right up to the invasion of the Soviet Union.
As for Progressives, they were part of the reason that in 1939, our military was not in the top 5.
But, if you want to be the one engaging in revisionism because it makes you feel self-righteous, go ahread.
Southern Senators had a variety of reasons for opposing Roosevelt. After all, in addition to being a socialist, he was a yankee from New York. And with the country still in the grips of the Great Depression, they had no reason to support fiscally irresponsible expenditures that would primarily benefit the industrialized northern states.
From 1939 until June 1941, the Nazis and Soviets were carving up Europe together.
No, The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact stated that both countries would not start war with each other and that they would not join an alliance with each other. The part where Stalin and Hitler had agreed to "carve up Europe" was kept secret from the world, holding out hope for some that Stalin could be persuaded to enter the war against Germany.
As for Progressives, they were part of the reason that in 1939, our military was not in the top 5.
As mentioned previously, the United States was still in the grips of the Great Depression, and had suffered an economic downturn as recently as 1937. If anything, they would have favored allocation of resources to social welfare programs and were NOT alligned with AFC objectives to strengthen our domestic military defense.
Face the facts, international interventionism, socialism, welfare, etc. etc. are all concepts with roots in Wilson/Roosevelt northeast liberal elitism. There is absolutely no way you can spin the facts to deny that truth.
Also note that the first article of America First was that it would not include any "fascists, communists,..." or others whose first allegiance was to something "other than this nation." If you doubt that Nazis and communists were deeply involved in AF, together with their money, you haven't read your history of the time -- from a non-biased source.
If you want to stick up for America First, why not go whole hog and stick up for Adolf Hitler? As for being relevant to America in the 21st century, stick with reality, or stick with Pat. It's your choice.
Congressman Billybob
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.