Posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:02 PM PST by ouroboros
What he writes, and you read, is his life.
Until 2004. Then he becomes a public nuisance.
The idea of attacking Iraq by ourselves ought to give every rational American pause. Can you say "draft"?
Yes, but the trick is where the evil is located, or where is the border between good and evil. Puritanism makes people to think that the border separates the elect and the condemned while the traditional insight is that the border goes across EVERY human heart. If we accept the second view then the primary restraining of the evil we will do in ourselves. But if we believe in the first way then most likely we will consider ourselves as being on the side of good and our enemies as evil (them being Irish papists, Indians, Spaniards, Commies, rightwingers, leftists, Serbs, Arabs, Chinese, whomever). This is the fundamental difference.
The true conservatism is based on the continuity, tradition and sound awareness of the complexity of human nature. The post-Puritan break with the tradition and the past is revolutionary, subversive, corruptive and regressive toward the barbarism.
There's a parallel here in the way that the Leftists of the early 20th century jumped on Wilson's war wagon, because they thought it would bring them more power, the realization of their schemes, and a reorganization of the world.
Or to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt: "Talk softly (Powell) and carry a big stick (Rumsfield)."
I predict that phase two will take place in the military tribunals. They will be ongoing with a seeming permanence, indicting alot of terrorists and leaders who have supported them. It will put the likes of Hussein into the appropriate venue, a military court. Its purpose will be to showcase would-be terrorists of their ultimate destiny. It will expose the cowardly and cultist nature of these terrorists, and the media play will blast the hero-martyr model that is so effectively used to condition vulnerable populations.
When was the last time Buchanan was right about anything?
You are avoiding my question. Again I ask, what did you find so disagreeable in Buchanan's assesment of the situation?
How about this quote to start with? Buchanan acts as if Bush is now happy about the terrorist acts when nothing could be farther from the truth. To make a claim that Bush actually "relishes" his role in the aftermath of the terrorists attacks is evidence that Buchanan is so full of himself that he wishes attacks of this nature would occur if he were President.
The terrorists attacks did not allow Bush to become or make him a leader, the events of September 11, and those earlier in his Presidency, have shown the world just what kind of leader he is.
Buchanan is nothing more than a self-centered egotist of the highest rank who only thinks he knows what's best for the United States and for its individual citizens. He is a socialist, because he wants to control your life and what you can do. The fact that you think you like everything he stands for does not make him any less of a socialist. Like all socialists, he believes thew only reason socialism has failed is because he isn't the one in charge of the country. What arogance!!
Am I afraid to answer the question? Not at all!!
I think that may be stretching it just a bit. I don't read into that paragraph what you do, but I will admit it could have been put a little better.
Buchanan is not saying Bush relishes the terrorist attacks. Your point is quite correct, though, when you point out that Bush was a leader before the attacks and the way he has dealt with the attacks has showed the world what a good leader he is. Buchanan should have put as well as you have.
Best Regards!
Are you for an Iraqi campaign or against one? I do agree it'd be quite a show.
Its time to consult your map. Afghanistan and Pakistan are central Asian countries. The Middle East extends only as far east as Iraq.
To be exact the Middle East is where Pakistan is. Syria, Iraq, Israel are in the Near East. "Near East" is the name used in USA before the political correctness, is being used in other countries and is still used as name of the departments in the more prestiguous universities which had power to withstand the pressure and had an ambition to protect their scholarship or tradition.
But aren't you being a bit pedantic? My point, supporting PJB's argument that we would have to attack Iraq by ourselves, was that the NA (whatever its etnicity) furnished almost all of the ground forces in Afghanistan. Where do you expect the infantry to come from for your block by block campaign to take Baghdad and kill Sadam (which may be very similiar to the Russian Army's Battle for Berlin in '45)?
I've also wondered what the "rulers" of Iran must be thinking while they are watching the pictures coming out of Kabul.
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.