Posted on 07/29/2014 5:48:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I think that's the impression Pat is giving me.
He warns against getting involved but does not tell us what would happen if we just stayed home.
The party’s united? That’s news to me.
As always, Pat knocks it out of the park.
What would Pat Buchanan’s policy be after 9/11 ?
Same advice he gave the French and the Brits when Germany invaded the Rhineland. Very happy he did not get elected President.
Too late for Iraq and too late for Afghanistan. It is also almost to late for America.
We still have two more years of Obama and a weakened military.
Pat’s policies would have prevented a 9/11
RE: Pat’s policies would have prevented a 9/11
Can you elaborate...
From the article Pat wrote these two points...
_______________________________
1) But it may be this idea of installing a ballistic missile defense, an ABM system, in Poland and the Czech Republic, that is most dangerous of all.
Putin has already signaled that this would cross his red line, that if we start implanting antimissile missiles in Eastern Europe, he will reply by installing offensive missiles.
2) Under Obama, the U.S. has declined to intervene in civil wars in Syria, Ukraine and Libya, or to go back in force in Iraq. He is pulling us out of Afghanistan.
The American Imperium is folding up. Retrenchment is underway.
If the Republican counteroffer to Obama’s is a return to the compulsive interventionism of Bush II, this is where some of us will be getting off.
_____________________________
ESSENTIALLY, PAT BUCHANAN’s FOREIGN POLICY IS OBAMA’s POLICY. HE SPEAKS OF WHAT OBAMA IS DOING ( OR NOT DOING ) WITH APPROVAL.
Sure, a less interventionist foreign policy gives less reason for other’s to attack
RE: Sure, a less interventionist foreign policy gives less reason for other’s to attack
That of course assumes that Al Qaeda’s attack on America is simply related to America’s presence in the Middle East rather than their desire to establish a worldwide caliphate under Islam.
In other words, this assumes that their motives are purely political and not apocalyptically religious.
Their own words tell us that this isn’t so.
So, what would Pat do about this Jihad that considers Christian America ( their words ) the enemy that must be brought down because of her evil worldwide cultural influence?
We should arm Kiev, it is a proxy war, plain and simple.
Pat thinks appeasement with Russia will work. Where was he when Reagan gave the speech tear down this wall?
RE: Pat thinks appeasement with Russia will work. Where was he when Reagan gave the speech tear down this wall?
I think it is not so much appeasement but the desire not to get involved.
I don’t even think he believes that it was right for the US to sacrifice the thousands of men to defeat Hitler.
He was also Reagan’s White House Communications Director ( tough job when you don’t agree with your boss’ policy ).
Buchanan is a conservative on immigration. He opposes amnesty and unending mass legal immigration. He supports conservative comprehensive immigration reform,. He would greatly reduce immigration overall.
So how would Buchanan-favored policies have prevented 9-11? It’s simple; Buchanan policies on immigration (i.e. sane, conservative policies) would have made it much less likely that the hijackers would have ever been allowed in the country in the first place. They would have also made it less likely that garbage like the Boston Marathon bombers would have been admitted.
You have to remember one thing — Muhammad Atta was not here as an immigrant. He was here on a tourist/business visa.
Did Buchanan say that he would not allow Arab students to come here to train or to tour or to do business? Can you cite me a quote?
I say we lend / lease again to Kiev.
“In other words, this assumes that their motives are purely political and not apocalyptically religious.
Their own words tell us that this isn’t so.”
Their words say it is exactly so:
“Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.”
From the Late Sheik, himself.
My WAG if the Russians start a PR campaign about refugees and war crimes by the Uki mercs then the fellas in DC better be prepared for war. IMO the American propaganda efforts are worn out dogs, so unless the hacks of war can gin up the efforts I guess that eastern Ukraine is going into Kosovo like status, because no one is going to help the US prosecute a war against Russia on its own doorstep.
“Sure, a less interventionist foreign policy gives less reason for other’s to attack”
It does not have anything to do with that. That is just pure nonsense. It has to do with Jihad and radical Islam. If you don’t follow Allah you are a target to them. Simple as that.
No I can’t. But a policy change from our current pro-Democrat one of unending mass immigration towards one of low-moderate immigration would allow more scrutiny of all legal entrants. It would hopefully allow someone like Atta to be screened out, and would hopefully disallow student visas from most Muslim nations.
Conservative immigration reform would also abolish the absurd Diversity Visa Lottery and end extended family chain migration. Together with allowing fewer refugees, these changes would likely cut off most Muslim immigration. It would definitely slow it down, and reverse the insane upwards trend of Muslim immigration since 9-11
Do you disagree that ending mass immigration and reducing the numbers we allow in from all the various channels would result in fewer terrorists being admitted? Or that it would allow greater scrutiny of the lower numbers we do allow in?
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.