Replies

"Terrorism is the price of empire … [I]t's something the British might say when they were driven out of Palestine, the French might say when they were driven out of Algeria. Quite simply, in this modern world, if you try to rule other peoples, even to alter them, make them democratic or force them to change their ways to conform to your own, you're going to have a serious problem with those people. They're going to fight, just like the American revolutionaries fought against the British Empire. We ought to know that. We were the first people … to rise up against an empire." – September 3, 2004.

I'd like to know what is in error in the comments above?

From the reading I've done, the British were on the receiving end of terrorist acts until they finally left Palestine.

I don't know about the French in Algeria.

and from my knowledge of the American Revolution, we did fight against the tyranny of the British.

My question is what is it that Buchanan is saying that draws so much ire, based on the above quote from him? Where is he in error?

Can someone explain without expletives, derogatory comments and otherwise non-explanation comments?

Quite simply, in this modern world, if you try to rule other peoples, even to alter them, make them democratic or force them to change their ways to conform to your own, you're going to have a serious problem with those people.

This sentence, Pat's premise, is simply wrong.

We are not trying to "rule" other people. In fact, we're not all that concerned with what form of government they have, barring pure authoritarian tyranny. All we ever wanted from anybody in this world is to trade with them: give us a chance to sell them our goods, buy theirs, and have them behave reasonably decently to other countries.

Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.