Skip to comments.
Crown Jewel of American Empire
World Net Daily ^
| April 23, 2003
| Pat Buchanan
Posted on 04/23/2003 3:55:20 AM PDT by Seti 1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
1
posted on
04/23/2003 3:55:20 AM PDT
by
Seti 1
To: Seti 1
Ah, another pearl from the Hiddenberg of American politics; a bloated gas bag of a relic from a previous era.
To: Seti 1
Poor old Pat, still carrying that pitchfork.
No words of wisdom here more fear mongering, and thumbsucking.
This guy reached his Waterloo long ago and the best he can do is sit on the side lines and quote the NY Times.
Our POW's held captive only two weeks and are still under physician care, here is a country held captive for decades and all old Pat sees is an Iraqi intifida, and use Old Europe words like "American empire".
To: CWOJackson
Another comment that does nothing but call people names ( I thought only liberals used that tactic )
The end result of Iraq situation is FAR from being decided
I may not agree with this editorial but it raises a lot of real concerns
Instead of calling names attack the premises and refute them
4
posted on
04/23/2003 4:47:40 AM PDT
by
uncbob
( building tomorrow)
To: uncbob
"...I thought only liberals used that tactic..."
Welcome newbe. Once you've been here a while you'll find that very few threads exists where people aren't called names. Heck, even the old gas bag who wrote this essay calls folks he disagrees with all kinds of paleo/neo names. Stick around and it won't shock you.
To: Seti 1
A horrible analogy by pitchfork pat.
I don't recall the Phillipines supporting international terrorism in 1898.
There is no desire to make Iraq part of any "Empire". Where does he get that idea? A quote from the NY Times that Rummy already denounced?
When pp quotes the NY Times, you KNOW he's out of gas!
To: You Dirty Rats
Well, in all fairness, Pat was right on the money about Desert Storm...oh, wait a second. No, that's right, he warned us that it would be another Vietnam and thousands of troops would come home in body bags.
But he was right in his predictions about Afganistan, that we would...oops, I guess he was wrong that time but...
There were his predictions about going into Irag...oh...
Well, there was that time when he was in the Nixon White House...
To: Seti 1
Pat, we hardly knew ye ...and what we did know, always made us giggle
8
posted on
04/23/2003 5:15:42 AM PDT
by
tomkat
To: Seti 1
"We must "Christianize" them, President McKinley explained."After we have Christianized the Muslim world, the really difficult task will begin: the Christianizing of Europe.
9
posted on
04/23/2003 5:18:12 AM PDT
by
Savage Beast
(Peace is the prerogative of the powerful--not the weak.)
To: CWOJackson
That's it. Bury your head in the hole in your sandpile. Did you actually read this? Buchanan is describing the quagmire that could actually happen. This is based on several historical precedents, Buchanan using the Phillipines as prime example.
Question: Do the current leaders, like the Clintons before them (and like many, apparently, that would be considered neo-Conservative), think they are too smart, too civilized, too advanced, to educated to learn from the lessons of history?
To: CWOJackson
Welcome newbe
Been here longer then you
11
posted on
04/23/2003 5:22:42 AM PDT
by
uncbob
( building tomorrow)
To: CWOJackson
He's quoting the New York Times...
Two possible explanations:
1. He's trying to build a new base for his Green Party campaign in 2004.
2. Senile dementia.
12
posted on
04/23/2003 5:25:39 AM PDT
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: Cacophonous
"Buchanan is describing the quagmire that could actually happen."
Yes, he described a similar quagmire for Desert Storm and Afganistan. Pat is very good at describing quagmires that could actually happen.
I am reading this essay and judging it on "historical precendents", the historical record of Pat's predictions.
To: You Dirty Rats
I don't recall the Phillipines supporting international terrorism in 1898.So...if I correctly follow your logic...you are saying that Iraq will be easier than the Phillipines because the latter did not export terrorism but did conduct a bloody three year guerilla campaign against the American occupiers.
Whereas the Iraqis, already exporters of terror, and in a region particularly prone to that pasttime (terror exportation) will be easier, precisely because they are already pre-disposed to fighting guerilla wars?
Huh?
To: Poohbah
Perhaps he could convince Hackworth to be his running mate for the Doom and Gloom party. They share a similar track record on their predictions.
To: tomkat
It's easy to marginalize any man as outspoken as Pat Buchanan is. But overall Mr. Buchanan has been right on the money. He wanted to stop the insane influx of immigrants years ago, he wanted build a fence on the Mexican border and guard it with military. He warned that international trade through NAFTA and GATT would end up hurting America, and on and on. Pat may be off a little bit in this particular article, but he knows Islam very well. He knows they will never allow us to stay on thier soil..... and he is right. I say find all the chemicals, weapons, cash and other evidence there may be to justify our invasion of Iraq, and then get the hell out of that hole. Let the U.N. come and watch them get torn to pieces by the "grateful" Iraqis. As for Syria, Iran and Jordan? I think we have sufficiently displayed our ability to take them apart in three weeks with just our air power alone. If the time comes to deal with them, then go for it. But for now, get all the evidence from Iraq and get out.
To: CWOJackson
I want him to run...as a Democrat. Let him do for that august body what he did to the Reform Party.
17
posted on
04/23/2003 5:31:35 AM PDT
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: CWOJackson
I think if you define a quagmire as the long-term involvement (and potential loss of life) of the US, without a cohesive end in sight, than Iraq and Afghanistan both qualify.
If you have a definition you prefer, I'd like to hear it.
It seems to me that Desert Storm I is precisely that; we are seeing the extension (or perhaps, hopefully, the end) of that quagmire now. If Bush 41 had succeeded, it could be argued, 11 September might never have happened, and we wouldn't be there.
And American troops are still in Afghanistan...any idea when they will be finished?
To: TheCrusader
Nicely said.
To: Cacophonous
How long will our folks be in Afganistan?
A lot longer then Pat's new magazine will be around but that is probably only a matter of months now. Oh I see, so you are saying that perhaps one day, if we remain there long enough, Pat's predictions might come true?
Sure, and one day Pat will tell us why we should all buy American while he's driving a Mercedes. Oh, forgot...we've been there before also.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 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