Our sanctions are meaningless anyway. We’ve been giving waivers to get around the sanctions for years.
Peace in Our Time
A fifth war in the Middle East? People barely noticed the first four. Just put it on the national credit card and send somebody else to fight it. Again.
Pat supporting President O.
Who’d have thought it? (Anyone with a brain).
If the Iranians get a nuclear weapon than the Arab countries will seek their own nuclear weapons. If we support Israel the war will be conventional. If we don’t support Israel the war will be nuclear. Which is the lesser of two evils?
Pat hates Jews so much that he simply is incapable of understanding the stakes in Iran.
Guess AIPAC won’t be sending any money to Buchanan.
If we want to get involved and move the ball on a few problems at once, we could simply arm the Kurds, the way we armed the Contras once upon a time.
Bibi is not just going to sit around and let this happen.
0bama’s insanity with regard to Iran is going to end up with a couple of very blue cities being turned into smoking, glowing, uninhabitable holes.
How much do the Iranians pay him, anyway?
Looks like Pat Buchanan is wanting Iran to finish what the Nazis wanted to do by killing all the Jews in Israel.
His own book stated he we should not have gotten involved in WW2 against the germans.
An assassination of an archduke does not incorporate the same issues as a reasonable threat of destruction upon an entire nation or nations. Germany may have had ulterior motives in their agreement with Austria that do not in any way parallel U.S. motives here. And Obama's comment about a bill voting for a U.S. preemptive strike or attack on Iran is not relevant here.
I agree we should not issue any country, even our allies like Israel, a "blank check" by signing away our sovereign right to choose whether to enter into a war but I'm not convinced that is what this is. The excerpt Pat used said "should" not "shall" and doesn't specify what kind of "diplomatic, military and economic support" the U.S. would give "to the Government of Israel in the defense of its territory, people and existence" and that "we should follow our laws and constitutional procedures" (as though that should have to be included). To me, this is simply saying that the U.S. will support its friend and ally Israel against Iran to persevere Israel's existence in any way the U.S. deems appropriate. I don't see a "blank check" here.
I think Pat has a bias against these international entanglements and not sure he's very sympathetic to Israel's constant threat by the nations of the area and the world. I like Pat, but don't agree with him here.
I think people on this thread should be more focused on arguing the issues Pat raises than arguing the person Pat is. We libertarians and conservatives should never shy away from arguing in the forum of ideas, becasue we are usually right and win the argument just about every time.
You and Pat are probably in love with Diane Feinstein now.
I like 95% of what Pat says but he is oblivious to Muslim imperialism. He rather play ostrich. He can ignore reality but reality will not ignore him
Given the choice between trusting Netanyahu and America's manifest national interest and a hack who shill for Hitler and say Churchill as the warmonger and an ideology, my choice is clear.