Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WRhine
Laughable is indeed the word. "Neocon" used to be the hippest thing to be called back when I was in college in the early 90's. I even called myself one. I was a "National Review" reading, "Commentary" consuming freak back in those days. Then- when Pat Buchanan came out against the first Gulf War (geesh- I wonder if 9/11 would ever have happened if we fought that stupid war to protect a bunch of corrupt kleptocrats in Kuwait?) my initial reaction was anger and I wondered why he doing this (I had read and admired his stuff for years). But over time and with the end of the Cold War I began to see that our foreign policy was trying to find enemies in order to justify our huge military and in turn justify the welfare state.

Is it a coincedence that because conservatives like Buchanan and Sobran who both opposed the first Gulf War were then drummed out of the "conservative movement" in 1992 with the publishing of a shameful special issue of National Review entitled "In Search of Anti Semitism" written by Buckley himself? That was the first sign to me that something was wrong with "mainstream" conservatism.

It has been a long road since and I have had to let go of a lot of deeply held myths since the first time I heard Buchanan denounce the first Gulf War back in 90. (My first reaction was one of anger- but it planted a seed in me).

60 posted on 08/20/2003 7:08:14 PM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: Burkeman1
Concerning the your thoughts on the 1st Gulf War consider these unquestionable facts.

a) 1990 - Iraq is finished with a war against Iran and is deep in debt.
b) Kuwait is pumping more oil than allowed by OPEC agreement, deflating the price of oil thus hurting Iraq's already troubled economy and ability to repay it's debts.
b1) Kuwait is drilling sideways under their border taping into Iraqi fields.
c) Iraq does a lot of very loud saber rattling but the Kuwaitis do not cease and desist.
d) The US does not take the initiative to be a peace broker or approach OPEC members on the brewing trouble.
d2) The US ambassador to Iraq April Glasby actually tells Saddam that his dispute with Kuwait is not our concern thus giving him a green light for action.
e) Saddam finally makes a move against Kuwait and we scream like a stuck pig about how Saddam is the next Hitler and we need to "restore democracy to Kuwait".
f) We tell the Saudis they need us to protect them though they do not feel threatened. We say we have satellite photos of Iraqi armor massing on their border ready to overrun them. Other countries satellites show nothing on the border - theirs are released to the world - we stand by our story and to this day have not released our photos.
g) We assure the Saudis our bases will only be on their soil for as long as it takes to liberate Kuwait.
h) We leave Saddam in power and establish no fly zones over his sovereign territory telling him he has no rights there thus making sure we need permanent bases to counter him and thus never leave Saudi Arabia. In short we now have a permanent excuse to have our troops in theatre where they can project force.
i) Just an aside - the Soviet Union had collapsed the year before and was therefore in no position to object to our moving into the gulf.

It seems that we saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. I will not comment on current situation but it looks to me like another exploited opportunity or better put, phase 2.

61 posted on 08/20/2003 7:45:46 PM PDT by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: Burkeman1
Is it a coincedence that because conservatives like Buchanan and Sobran who both opposed the first Gulf War were then drummed out of the "conservative movement" in 1992 with the publishing of a shameful special issue of National Review entitled "In Search of Anti Semitism" written by Buckley himself? That was the first sign to me that something was wrong with "mainstream" conservatism.

That legendary hit piece on those two highly respected conservatives set the mold for the conservative jihad we see today in the Republican Party today (note: this never would have happened under Reagan). It demonstrated that some "so-called" conservatives were not above using the very same black bag character assassination tactics that the democrats have used on republicans for years.

It has been a long road since and I have had to let go of a lot of deeply held myths since the first time I heard Buchanan denounce the first Gulf War back in 90. (My first reaction was one of anger- but it planted a seed in me).

You have a great free-ranging mind. And you are so young. Yeah, I too was taken back when PJB came out against the first Gulf War but I did not condemn him for it and filed it away as one of the few disagreements I had with his positions. In retrospect, for the same reason you mentioned, I can at least better understand where Pat was coming from. History may yet prove him right.

If one has, as their primary objective, seeking out the real truth of matters it can sometimes lead to some very strange places. And there are quite a few that don’t like hearing the truth.

63 posted on 08/20/2003 8:54:49 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson