Free Republic

What did I say to imply that I do not support the war against terrorism? To the contrary, I believe that I am at least more consistent in my support of it than Bush #43, or Sharon, since I would strike at the head of the evil, which Sharon insists is Arafat, rather than the tail, the Palestinian refugeee camps and towns, which I believe to be counter-productive.

What does annoy me is that any criticism of Israel or its policies is immediately branded "antisemitic". I think PJB has made and continues to make excellent points which are obviously in the minds of Bush #43 and his advisors. We need to understand the political realities so we can make informed decisions as to which policies and leaders to support.

If you are correct that Sharon will keep troops and tanks in the West Bank until the terrorism ends, I think they will be there a very long time. And any reprieve that is obtained will be very short lived.

Ultimately, Israel will have to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people if it wants peace. However the Palestinians must also reject terrorism and adopt new leadership. Eventually they will realize that the means to their desired ends can best be gained by peaceful, nonviolent resistance as demonstrated by Gandi and Martin Luther King.

Everyone seems to be convinced that PJB is antisemitic because he believe that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances that should be considered. I believe that is true, altho I think that they have forfeited their right to our sympathy by resorting to terrorism. Of course what PJB and I think is irrelevant. If Israel wants to destroy the terrorists (and I think that it has the right to try) then I would submit the two primary imediments are its own policy of tolerating Arafat (it could easily kill or capture him at any time) and Bush #43, who is obviously restraining Israel (which may also be responsible for problem #1, Arafat, altho Israel accepted him at Oslo in '92, and can't blame Bush #43 for that).

Of course, in the real world, Bush #43 and Israel have to accept that the political reality is that killing Arafat would probably just transform him from a powerless symbol of an impotent force to a martyr to the Palestinian state.

Given these realities, I doubt that Israel is going to "conquer a peace" by invading the West Bank. To the contrary, I think it is going to learn the lesson of the "tarbaby", which Sharon should have learned in Lebanon 20 years ago. How long do you think Sharon will keep Israeli troops and tanks in the West Bank before "declaring victory"?

You are correct that Mr. & Mrs. Pat Buchanan have no children. When asked about this, and why they haven't adopted, he has responded to the effect that they are playing the hand they were dealt. I take that to mean that they assume it was not part of God's plan for them that they be parents.

Thank you for your points. Let me be very clear about this: I have absolutely no sympathy for Mr. Walker. I think every patriotic American should shun him, in the unlikely event that he should be met in some foreign country. He should never be allowed back into the U.S. for any reason under any circumstances. He should be treated as a man without a country.

I don't mean to be rude about this but you are clear enough; I just think you are wrong about Walker and treason. Re Walker, he clearly did not leave the country to join any army. Everything I have read is that he talked his parents into sending him to Yemen (I think) so that he could pursue his studies of the Koran and Islam. Americans go overseas for wacky ideas every day.

I do not believe that you can make the case that simply joining al Qaeda (sp?) makes you a terrorist. Certainly no one in our government or military has alleged that to my knowledge. If he did COMMMIT any terrorist act, then he should be charged with that and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However I do not think we can or should prosecute him for treason for openly supporting an "enemy", particularily in an undeclared war; that is just too dangerous a precedent to set.

Sorry that you are struggling so with the definition of treason. Without bothering to have done any research on the topic (and I don't think there are many cases on point) I would define treason as an active duty member of the U.S. military changing sides or any U.S. citizen committing any act to support the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

Thank you for your responses. At least you are willing to address the issues, if somewhat emotionally rather than rationally.

You name 3 things Walker did "wrong": 1. He left the U.S. (clearly no offense; in fact I understand that one MUST do so in order to renounce his citizenship); 2. He "trained in an al Quaeda terrorist camp"; I'm not sure this is correct, but even if it is, "training" alone would not legally constitute an offense, unless accompanied by some act, IMHO; and 3. He took up arms against the U.S. military. True, but so did every other member of the Taliban army, and they are all entitled to be treated as POWs, just as he is.

You have either missed or ignored my point. Assuming that Walker's defense is that he renounced his citizenship, which I believe he has every right to do, then he has not committed any offense by opposing the U.S. military in a foreign country. Even if he does not contend that he renounced his citizenship, the prosecution is going to have to prove that we were at war with the forces he was supporting in order to prove the charge of treason. I'm sorry that you are tired of debating the subject (BTW, when and where was this subject previously addressed by you or anyone else?), but it is definitely going to have to be addressed before we can put this young man to death. Sorry if that is inconvenient for you but you just might want the same Constitutional protections yourself someday; even if you are willing to throw away the Constitution I'm definitely not.

For what does Walker deserve the death penalty, or any other punishment? Supposedly we live in a free country. I would think that means that one also has the fundamental right to renounce your allegiance, which Walker obviously did.

He made an adult decision and he should be held accountable for that. However I do not think that he can or should be punished for openly supporting the other side, in "their" country.

BTW, does anyone have any knowledge that we are actually (legally) "at war" with anyone? I would think that would be a fundamental requirement of convicting Walker of treason; we would have to prove that he actually was fighting for "the other side" in a declared war.

Altho I won't go so far as to say I "agree" with Ms. Thomas, I do disagree with most other posters on this thread who are calling for Mr. Walker's head. IMHO, it is clear that this young man at least tacitly (it not actually) renounced his American citizenship by taking up arms with the Taliban. HOWEVER, I have seen no evidence that he acted as a terrorist or proganda agent for the Taliban; he was simply a soldier for a "cause/government(?)" that we are purportedly at war with (actually, to the best of my knowledge, we are not actually at war because Congress has not declared war).

BTAIM, it appears that Walker was simply a soldier for the enemy. Therefore he should be treated as are all other POWs unless there is some evidence that he committed some "war crime" (which I have not heard even alleged; he certainly has a right if not a duty to try to escape, just as our soldiers do).

Therefore I would consider Walker not to be a traitor, but just a foriegn national who allied himself with the enemy. Of course, he should never be allowed back into this country, but then neither should any other captured enemy soldier.

Pat was, obviously, a Presidential candidate at the time he made that speech (actually June 23, 2000). I'm sure that he would stand by the comment today but, to actually put his quote is context, he was referring to the Islamic community's support of shared family values and belief that abortion was wrong. You also failed to include the remainder of the sentence: ". . .in an age when I see our country going in the wrong direction."

"Except oil, dope and natural resources" (?)

I beg your pardon? America certainly doesn't need "dope"; the fact that you seem to think we do makes me wonder about your point of view. BTAIM, we certainly have more oil now than Germany and Japan had to fight WWII; Germany especially got by mostly with coal, and we have more of that than any other country on earth, enough to supply our present energy needs for over 100 years (surely long enough to come up with some new resource and or technology).

What "natural resources" do you consider us wanting? Aside from coffee and chrome, I believe America is more than self sufficient; in fact, we export raw materials and food to most of the rest of the world.

Just where would you prefer to live?

Pat isn't here but, in his stead, I'll take a shot at a few of the issues you raised:

1.You question his grasp of history and refer to the "collapse" of China but don't say when. The only collapse of China I'm familiar with took place in the century between the early 1800s, beginning with the "opium wars" when England forced China to accept the importation (in the name of"free trade") of heroin in exchange for its valuable finished goods and products such as silk. Of course those foreign drugs destroyed the lives of millions of Chinese. However China had no domestic arms industry (despite the fact gunpowder was invented there a 1000 years before) so tiny England could impose its will on China, as Japan did in the next century. China is getting stronger every day now because it refuses to participate in the "global economy".

2. Yes, deficits ARE debts, especially when you are buying foreign cars and other manufactured goods for your cash. If you don't have anything with real value to support the value of your currency, eventually the foreigners will use your cash to buy up your domestic industries and land, and we'll be owned by them (as America has "owned" many foreign countries, at least until the corrupt governments were overthrown, which is one reason that all these so called "free trade" deals require the US taxpayers to underwrite all this foreign investment).

3. The significance of the loss of a manufacturing base. See China in the 19th and 20th centuries as noted above. When the next war comes (and it is just a matter of time), where will we get our war materials if we have no manufacturing base. Let's be very elementary about it. What do we do when we run out of bullets?

3a. The significance of the loss of manufacuring jobs. It should be obvious that not everyone can or should go to college or be a computer whiz. How many working people can buy a house or put their kids through college without the income and benefits associated with manufacturing jobs. McDonalds may be hiring, but you don't get health insurance just for being able to say "Would you like fries with that?" Of course, when most people can't afford housing, health care or education, then they naturally expect the government to supply those benefits.

4. The benefit of cheaper consumer goods to the consumer. That's great as long as the consumer can still afford to buy. However when jobs start disappearing and consumers start getting nervous they quit buying; does that sound familiar? After all, the market is HERE. How many of those manufacured goods like VCRs and DVD players do you really think you're going to sell in China? BTW, have you checked the value of your 401k lately? Still planning to retire next year?

This was not exactly Homer's best line, or the worst shot at Unitarianism (I did whince at "Unitartian Stew": there's nothing in it). Of course Homer isn't much of an authority about faith of any type. However, I think the joke is SUPPOSED to be that, according to most Unitarians (including me) there is NO "one true faith"; God reveals himself to each of us as we are able to understand and comprehend Him. Therefore your faith is, presumably at least, as "true" as mine.

The final arbiter for all faiths is how well it works for and through you. Or as James, the brother of Jesus said, ". . .show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. . .faith without works is useless." James 2:18 & 20.

Thank you for a reasonable response; I apologize if my first post was a bit intemperate.

We are both off the topic of this thread, but I will respond to your points. Buchanan does support a protective tariff, which I happen to think is a good idea. However the point of all taxes is to raise money, and the tariffs we had before the WBTS raised more money than the government could spend. Of course we presently have sales, propery and income taxes and even a few tariffs still in place. Sales taxes are generally considered to be the most "regressive" because everyone has to buy necessities and therefore must pay the tax to that extent (of course, lotteries are the most direct tax on the poor, but that's a whole different topic).

I do dispute your allegation that Buchanan has made "disparaging references" to Jews. He has criticized Israel, and pointed out that there are differences between what is best for America and Israeli foreign policy. That does not make him an anti-semite. The only evidences you offerred were that he talked about limiting Jewish enrollment to Universities and "international bankers" being "code" for Jews. As I recall the article I think you are referring to, he was talking about the "double standard" of many, especially in the NE/Ivy League (not code for Jews) who supposedly favor diversity and affirmative action but are actually admitting minorities at the expense of well qualified working class, mostly Catholic, whites but not well connnected Jews (becasue they are disproportinately represented in the faculties). I believe his point was that "affirmative action" had adverse consequenses for certain ethnic groups, which is demonstrably correct (in fact his article was actually based on a research paper some academic had done, as I recall). As for "international banker" being "code" for Jews, I do not believe I have ever heard any living person (including but not limited to Pat Buchanan) call for the criminalization and or persecution of international bankers. Nevertheless, I do believe that "IBs", like mulitnational coroporations, have an agenda that is not necessarily in America's best interests. To that extent, they are certainly subject to criticism.

As for there being "tons of evidence" that President Wilson was a Communist, how about sharing (or referring me to) just the best 2 pounds of it with me?

I believe that the differences between Hitler's and Mussioli's politics are largerly just semantic (no pun on "semitic" intended); "Nazi" was a derogatory term, as "Fascist" has become (supporters of Hitler were called both).

Let me see if I have this right: You "hate" Buchanan but have to agree that he was "right" about Wilson being a "Communist"; tarrifs (the principal means of funding this country prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment) are socialistic because they are, after all, taxes; and Buchanan is a "Nazi" because he talks of "nationalism and anti-semitism" (as if those two things just naturally go together; in point of fact, the "first" Nazi head of state, Mussolini, was not an antisemite, for all his other faults).

Aside from the fact that logic is obviously not your strong suit, you must be a very sick puppy. I know that I should just pity you but I am just too tired of hearing that irrational "anti-semitic" charge made every time a Buchanan article is posted. Obviously some people are just incapable of engaging in a serious discussion of issues and must always make unsupported (and unsupportable) ad hominen attacks to disguise how lacking in content their positions are.

Re: I joined this thread late but I will try to answer your question in #50 about U.S.Grant holding slaves in 1866 (after the ratification of the 13th Amendment). I do not profess to be an authority on Gen. Grant. It is my understanding that his wife, not he, inherited the slaves (just as R.E.Lee's wife did). BTAIM, he clearly had no problem with the concept of slavery.

The 13th Amendment was not ratified until Dec. 18, 1865 (with the votes of all the former Confederate States except Miss.). Ironcially, all of those Southern state governments were then declared illegal because they included former Confederates.

Section 2 of the 13th Amendment gives Congress the "power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Presumably Congress did not get around to passing that legislation until some time in 1866, so I don't doubt that many slaves in the border states and territories continued to be held until then. No doubt many former slaves stayed with their former masters even after emancipation, having no where else to go.

I really don't know if this applies to Gen. & Mrs. Grant or not, but it is an answer to your question.

I believe that it was Oscar Wilde who said: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." These days we could add: Those who can't teach, teach teachers.

I'm glad to hear that you don't hate Pat Buchanan; I hope you aren't an Auburn fan either. Of course, you don't need my permission to disagree with PJB, me or anyone else. However I wish that you would limit your criticism's of Mr. Buchanan's comments, such as those set out above, to flaws in his arguments, logic, etc., and spare us the personal attacks.

That said, why do you disagree with him that an attack on Iraq will be a dangerous step for the US, since we will probably have to do most of the fighting by ourselves?

Don't mince words; tell us how you really feel about PJB!

I'm sorry you are in a bad mood (unless you are an Auburn fan); I'm feeling great since 'Bama crushed our cross state rivals in their place today (Roll Tide Roll)

Anyway, if you aren't just upset about a football game, I respectfully suggest you may feel better if you try READING Mr. Buchanan's comments and then responding to the merits of his argument without reference to the ad hominem attacks that seem to be required of the Buchanan haters.

When and where did I make the point that we "need to protect our Arab coalition"? I only made the point that we haven't been doing most of the ground combat in Afganistan, but we will be if we try to depose Saddam by force.

Obviously we don't know just how bloody another war with Iraq will be. However the Israelis learned in Beruit that the Palestians and Arabs can be as deadly in street fighting as the Russians or any other army in the world. Fighting in the rubble negates most of the advantages that a highly skilled armor force has in the open. I hope we don't have to learn that lesson again in Baghdad. I'm sure that was one of the primary reasons that Bush #41 declared victory so quickly in '91.