Pat Buchanan: U.S. Pays the High Price of Empire

Los Angeles Times ^ | 09/18/2001 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[AppyPappy]

If Pat would have waited until the bodies are buried, people MIGHT listen to him. Instead, he has to lecture us on our evil nature while Americans are being pulled from the rubble.

[Republican Wildcat]

Terrorism on America's own soil doesn't bother you?

Nice defense. Don't bother addressing anything I say, then accuse me of supporting terrorism. I'll accept this as your indirect admission to having been soundly defeated in this argument.

[tonycavanagh]

You said To suggest our involvement in other parts of the world is solely a catalyst for the hatred some of the militant factions of other cultures has is ridiculous.

I am saying it is not ridicules.

as an analogy I pointed out that on this very site many people look at the UN the same way many people in the Middle East and the Balkans look at America.

America supports a number of what are seen as pro Western dictatorships in the Middle East the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait amongst others.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait America responded with her military might, and kicked Iraq out, when Israel invaded Lebanon, America was seen to do nothing.

Israel her self survives due to American military muscle.

Therefore American involvement in other parts of the world is seen as a catalyst for the hatred some of the militant factions of other cultures.

If the UN wielded the same power in America as America wields world wide I would not be surprised if patriots such as your self would take action against the UN.

I have served in many parts of the globe and I have seen first hand the resentment towards both my country and more to the point yours, solely due to the power and the assumed right we have in manipulating local sitauations to suit our world view point.

Tony

[sneakypete]

>>America doesn't have international financial interests, its financial interests are in the homeland.<<

ROFLMAO! You Patsie's are SOOOOO ignorant of reality. It is in our SELF-INTEREST to have other countries have healthy economies. If they don't,they won't have the money to buy our products and services.

>>Corporations do have international financial interests and they have nothing to do with America,<<

I guess individual Americans and various retirement funds don't own corporate stock,or that none of the goods and/or services these corporations sell to other countries finds it's way back to America?

>> but you free traitors refuse to see that.<<

Ahhh,another "good little commie" who opposses free trade.Grow up.

[Cincinatus]

Is it incumbent on us to help establish a Democracy in a country where 51% on the residents want it? How about 49%? In the Middle East, there may be only 25% of the citizenry that are educated well, and know the difference between governments.

I'm not advocating "establishing" anything -- I said that it's in our interest to promote democracy. that means 1) supporting the few democratic states that do exist in the region, like Israel; 2) NOT supporting Islamic fundamentalist states, unless we do so temporarily as an expedient to some greater end; and 3) actively opposing terrorist-harboring states, viz., Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.

First we must secure our borders (Pats way with a fence), make sure the ships and planes coming in are free of danger and enemies, then evict all who are not citizens, ALL of them. How can we fight a war without first evicting all possible terrorists, and jailing any traitors?

We live in a porous, free society and illegal immigration, and the potential problems that entails, will always be something we will have to struggle against. Pat's "strategy" is a non-strategy -- he would basically eliminate immigration, which hurts us in the long run.

One thing that bugs me about people with your opinions, how is Buchanan at once and war monger, and an isolationist. It seems he has been called both during his public career.

I have never called Pat a "warmonger." I can and do call him an isolationist, because that's what he is. I also think that he's largely destroyed his political credibility with some of his loopier opinions. None of this is personal with me -- I don't hate the guy; I just think that he's full of it.

explain a policy that will 1) punish our enemies 2) reduce or get rid of the danger 3) not reduce our rights at home 4) not bring into effect a southern fence, or tighter restrictions on immigration [Pats main push I believe.]

Basically, it all comes down to a willingness to do what's necessary. Our objective should be to root out the terror network, root and branch. No doubt to the dismay of the Patsies, this will involve more international cooperation and entanglement, not less. Good intelligence is our overriding, principal need right now -- intelligence on where the camps are, who runs them, where they get their money, and how they operate. We are in some deep crap right now because thanks to Clinton and his evisceration of our intelligence capabilities, we're a little behind the eight-ball in intelligence assets right now. That's one of the reasons we need the Israelis, the Europeans, the Indians, and the Pakistanis -- to help us locate and target our adversaries.

This "war" will not be over soon, so an important need will be for Bush to maintain the coalition. This is a thorny political problem (one that Pat couldn't accomplish in a million years, by the way) and will be Bush's principal challenge after the initial few military strikes. The goals are to strike all terrorist camps, personel, and material, wherever they are, constantly, until they are completely and utterly destroyed.

Illegal immigration is a long-term problem, but I have no problem with the FBI and police taking appropriate measures (and that includes "racial profiling") during wartime. In any event, a consequence of our promting a democratic lifestyle and free markets will ultimately be to reduce immigration -- a lot of immigrants come to the USA for freedom and economic opportunity and if they have that at home, why emmigrate?

[Willie Green]

The Reform Party was pro-abortion when Pat took the nod. Ross Perot's wife was a Planned Parenthood board member.

These links are provided for the benefit of the more thoughtful members of this forum.

Please don't waste my time by responding to me.

REFORM PARTY OPPOSES STEM CELL RESEARCH
Reform Party adopts pro-life platform
Reform Party delegates take anti-abortion stance
REFORM PARTY NOW PRO-LIFE!!!

[1rudeboy]

Let's see. The terrorists struck us because of our support for Israel. Your solution is to stop supporting Israel.

So what's your solution when we are struck because we support Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Turkey? Iceland?

[major-pelham]

"Pat's counsel is simply worthless. "

And what exactly is that counsel ? To extricate ourselves from the morass after we win the new war ? If that is worthless counsel then we need to redefine the word.

[jeremiah]

America is a target because we are the dominant culture

How do you know this?

Could we be the target because, we are a dominant culture, and they are afraid of becoming like us?

Could we be the target because, we attack them, and talk of Democratizing them, when they are quite happy with being ruled by dictators, kings or shahs.

Could we be a target because we have an arrogance of position, we aren't exactly quiet about our successes, or humble about our blessings.

I gave you several choices, now why is yours correct. If yours is correct, why, and why is Pats, or anyone elses incorrect. Unless your opinion is defensible, or another position is easily dismantled, how can one know the truth? Do we not find the truth by discussion? How can we have a discussion without hearing all points of view? We can't hear all points of view, if a person is ridiculed for differing from the mainstream of thought, and you dismiss the premise of Pats thoughts, with a smear and invectives, not logic. Are you sure you aren't being led around by the nose, by say Rush?, or maybe you are just part of the crowd of lemmings, that once pushed in a certain direction, will continue until you are required to jump off the cliff.

I am not attacking you personally, but just asking you to look inside, decide why you believe what you do, and give thought to what others think.

If we as a nation, think we can blow away our enemies with sheer power, we are sadly mistaken. There must be a rational, reasoned approach to a solution, and it will require much thought, not blind followers. That is for the Taliban, not America.

[GSWarrior]

Your Post #21 has been reported as abuse.

[duckln]

The post I saw a couple of days ago, in which that idiot duckln spoke about how NYers deserved what they got for electing Hillary

I didn't know I was that well read, but you are lying! The facts are that the 'blue' country, which behind Boston, NYC comes in a close second, elect the most kooks, neocons, etc. that don't concern themselves with the well being of our country.

Just contemplate where we would be if Gore was president. Yes, there is a good arguement that our left leaders have failed us, nit picking non issues for years, paraphrasing what Rush has been saying.

NY now has a capable, mayor and governor. Their next task is to have the same on the national scale. With capable government you have a chance, with the caliber coming out of the 'blue' (NY et al) you have none.

[GSWarrior]

Nephi, please accept my apologies. I didn't realize the context of your post until it was too late. I sincerely apologize.

[1rudeboy]

You missed my point. Your solution is to give into one of the terrorists' demands. You presume that giving in will make them leave us alone. What's your solution when the next demand comes in?

[MadIvan]

Are Arabs planning to invade America or something?

They already did. Nice attempt at an ostrich impersonation however.

Ivan

[Republican Wildcat]

Your lifting of one sentence out of my paragraph from its context does not constitute a relevant response. In order to make your point you would have to argue that the other premises of my argument were incorrect, which you failed to do and have again failed to do. So my argument stands unrefuted, thus far. If you think it is incorrect, by all means, you may address it.

[jeremiah]

Since we can't seem to stay out of the middle east, we might as well occupy it

Spoken like a citizen in good standing of the Empire. At least admit it, you are comfortable with this loss of Republic, and see this American Empire as inevitable, and good. Maybe that is what others see about us that scares them. This time between us being attacked, and us forming a policy, is precisely the time to have reasoned discussions about the limits of our war, the purposes of them, the strategies, the goals and the exit strategy. It is not for us to blindly follow our leaders, they are supposed to reflect us, not us them.