Posted on 09/27/2001 9:09:59 AM PDT by ex-snook
A great summary. When the neocons lied that Pat's book 'A Republic, Not an Empire' was anti-semitic, those who read it themselves saw that neocons are war propagandists. Now others will see them. Pat's book was a blueprint for our survival in this century.
You're kidding. Says who? ;)
And to call the people with him assassins is to show where your bias rests.
Pat has been echoing that great socialist Noam Chomsky for years.
Some great thinker.
Some patriot.
Pat's bottom line is for the U.S. to withdraw support for Israel, which is not going to happen.
I don't think that it Pat's line at all. If you read with improved comprehension, Pat is saying that we have no business fighting Israel's wars. That is different than saying "end support." Many of us feel no reason to NOT support Israel, as we would any other friendly democratic nation. But it's a hell of a stretch from that support to fighting another country's battles, which is what the neocons here are clearly demanding from Bush -- or else. Nice guys. Why are THEY so obsessed with Israel?
The neocons represent American people just as much as the Lenin's People's Commissariate did the Russian people.
Well said, however we both know who won, and what happened thereafter.
American interests, articulated by Bush, are to hunt down the terrorists wherever they are. If they find harbor in Iraq or in Saudi Arabia, that's who the enemy
And if they have found harbor in, say, Germany, Canada or the Netherlands -- or in the good old USA itself? It seems these were where they spent their most productive periods. What now, bomber boy?
Uh, the battle came to our shores on Sept. 11. We're trying to get Israel to kiss and make up with that rat Arafat.
Uh, the battle came to our shores on Sept. 11. We're trying to get Israel to kiss and make up with that rat Arafat.
Don't shape-shift on me. You made a specific statement that misrepresented Buchanan's point and I clarified it. I said nothing about "our shores" or the like. The argument is not whether something came to our shores on the 11th, but rather what should be done about it. You and your neocon buddies take one view, the rest of us take another.
The difference is the knowledge, consent, and support of the governments involved. Terrorists can operate pretty freely in the US, Canada, Germany, etc., because they are, by and large, free societies, not because they share the terrorists goals. That is different than, for example, Egypt, Syria, and Afghanistan who at best turn a blind eye to the terrorist activities and at worst provide direct assistance to them.
If terrorist operations are discovered in non-consenting countries, the method for acting against them is different -- it essentially becomes a local problem, though any information obtained would be wanted by the US, and likely given to them. Military strikes are not needed when the local governments are taking care of the problems themselves. Take, for example, the aggressive crackdown on terrorist cells in the US, Canada, and western Europe over the last couple of weeks (it is likely that many of them were under surveillance (but not enough evidence to act against) prior to the WTC/Pentagon attacks, and those were then likely the starting point for rounding up what can be uncovered) -- in these "friendly" (cooperative governments) areas, it is more like policework, as opposed to the "unfriendly" areas, which will require covert and/or overt military action.
As I said in my earlier post, there are a wide variety of methods available, and it comes down to choosing the correct mix of those methods for each particular case. Obviously direct military action is appropriate in some cases, and would be absolutely wrong in others. The same could be said for the other methods as well.
The US supported the KLA and Chechen terrorists. Many muslim countries are openly on the side of the KLA and Chechen terrorists too. Bomb Washington?
The neocons are only intent on a holy war while President Bush intends a war on terrorism. Bush is looking for America's best interest. Neocons don't see terrorists, they see an opportunity to involve the USA in their quest to obliterate Islam.
All that is well and good, but the issue here is that the worst war mongers belong to the neocon camp and that their motives are highly suspect due to their record of Israel-first policies. Neocons are the last ones to ask what American foreign policy should be and their opinions are the least trustworthy.
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.