No End To War - Excellent Article by Pat Buchanan

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Pat has always held a few positions that are way out there, but on the whole the guy is quite brilliant and would make a decent President.

Ever since I've watched Pat on the Mc Laughlin Group, I've been quite impressed with him. He has some very good POV on a good range of issues (although a little nuts on a few, but who isn't? .) I often find myself agreeing with him more often than anyone else on the panel. I think he's been painted in the light of his more extreme views, but not in the totality of his opinions.

I dunno about prez though, but I'd pick him over Bush!

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard

...was official American policy

What exactly does this mean? Yes, I know about the Act that was passed, but what exacly does 'official American policy' mean?

Well, when an act or resolution is passed in Congress, it becomes either American law or policy. The "official" part is a no-brainer.

Ok, so it becomes policy. But my question is...

"What does that mean?"

No, I'm not being 'funny'. I seriously want to know what it means. Obviously, you're not suggesting that because it was our 'policy', we were justified in doing what we did.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself this: "What good is a law if it isn't enforced?"

Fact is, the sanctions couldn't go on forever. Something had to be done with Hussein's Iraq. Either he let the UN in (which he finally did after a gun was pointed to his head) or he stood down. However, I don't want to discuss scenerios. THe point is a law was passed and it became official american policy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hafen
I dunno about prez though, but I'd pick him over Bush!

Hell, some people who were going to vote for Gore even voted for Pat:Q

- sorry I couldn't resist. My apologies to moonie for beating him to it.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard

...was official American policy

What exactly does this mean? Yes, I know about the Act that was passed, but what exacly does 'official American policy' mean?

Well, when an act or resolution is passed in Congress, it becomes either American law or policy. The "official" part is a no-brainer.

Ok, so it becomes policy. But my question is...

"What does that mean?"

No, I'm not being 'funny'. I seriously want to know what it means. Obviously, you're not suggesting that because it was our 'policy', we were justified in doing what we did.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself this: "What good is a law if it isn't enforced?"

Fact is, the sanctions couldn't go on forever. Something had to be done with Hussein's Iraq. Either he let the UN in (which he finally did after a gun was pointed to his head) or he stood down. However, I don't want to discuss scenerios. THe point is a law was passed and it became official american policy.

Crap, you still didn't answer me. If you don't know, just say so. )

Maybe I'll just make a thread asking you to answer me.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard

...was official American policy

What exactly does this mean? Yes, I know about the Act that was passed, but what exacly does 'official American policy' mean?

Well, when an act or resolution is passed in Congress, it becomes either American law or policy. The "official" part is a no-brainer.

Ok, so it becomes policy. But my question is...

"What does that mean?"

No, I'm not being 'funny'. I seriously want to know what it means. Obviously, you're not suggesting that because it was our 'policy', we were justified in doing what we did.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself this: "What good is a law if it isn't enforced?"

Fact is, the sanctions couldn't go on forever. Something had to be done with Hussein's Iraq. Either he let the UN in (which he finally did after a gun was pointed to his head) or he stood down. However, I don't want to discuss scenerios. THe point is a law was passed and it became official american policy.

Crap, you still didn't answer me. If you don't know, just say so. )

Maybe I'll just make a thread asking you to answer me.

IMHO, the law was ambivalent. On the one hand, it became official policy. On the other hand, it laid dormant until Bush came to power.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hafen
I dunno about prez though, but I'd pick him over Bush!

Hell, some people who were going to vote for Gore even voted for Pat:Q

- sorry I couldn't resist. My apologies to moonie for beating him to it.

CkG

Where is Moonie? I haven't seen him post lately.

Anyway, OMFG, Pat was writing this for CAD & Co of the ATPN:

"The neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality."

"Did the neocons get the war they wanted. And after America fought the war for which they had beaten the drums, how do Perle & Co. explain why it did not turn out as they assured us it would?"

The long retreat of American empire has begun.

In Washington, there are rumors of the return of James Baker and the imminent departure of Paul Wolfowitz.

The neocons do not want to narrow our list of enemies. They do not want to confine America?s war to those who attacked us. They want to expand our list of enemies to include Israel?s enemies.

They want Bush to expand the war, broaden the theater of operations, multiply our enemies, and ignore our allies. If Bush should adopt this strategy, it would be America and Israel against the Arab and Islamic world with Europe neutral and almost all of Asia rooting for our humiliation.

The neocons have also begun to injure their reputations and isolate themselves with the nastiness and irrationality of their attacks. French cannon once bore the inscription ultima ratio regum, the last argument of kings. The toxic charge of ?Anti-Semite!? has become the last argument of the neocons. But they have wheeled out that cannon too many times. People are less intimidated now. They have seen men look into its muzzle and walk away.

This is a time for truth. With a mighty and hostile Soviet Empire no longer militarily present in the Maghreb and Middle East, U.S. and Israeli strategic interests have ceased to coincide. And with nightly pictures of Palestinian suffering on Al Jazeera, they have begun to collide.

Thus between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives a breach has been opened and an irreconcilable conflict has arisen. We of the Old Right only have one country. We believe U.S. foreign policy must be determined by what is best for America. And what is best for America is what our forefathers taught: If you would preserve this Republic, stay out of foreign wars, avoid ?permanent alliances,? beware of ?passionate attachments? to nations not your own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:Q , I thought Pat was a Republican, one of your own CAD & Co? What gives???

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Never thought I'd say it, but I agree with Pat. Infact, Pat sounds downright reasonable compared to the crazies running our foreign policy.

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: Dari
While many here may agree that Perle and other neoconservaties are a little obsessed with Israel, why does everyone forget that Iraqi liberation was official American policy after Clinton signed it into law.




what do you mean obsessed, they're using America to fight Isreal's war, taxes, the army etc This is insane!! They don't give a damn thing about America just like you

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hafen
I dunno about prez though, but I'd pick him over Bush!

Hell, some people who were going to vote for Gore even voted for Pat:Q

- sorry I couldn't resist. My apologies to moonie for beating him to it.

CkG

Where is Moonie? I haven't seen him post lately.

Anyway, OMFG, Pat was writing this for CAD & Co of the ATPN:

"The neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality."

"Did the neocons get the war they wanted. And after America fought the war for which they had beaten the drums, how do Perle & Co. explain why it did not turn out as they assured us it would?"

The long retreat of American empire has begun.

In Washington, there are rumors of the return of James Baker and the imminent departure of Paul Wolfowitz.

The neocons do not want to narrow our list of enemies. They do not want to confine America?s war to those who attacked us. They want to expand our list of enemies to include Israel?s enemies.

They want Bush to expand the war, broaden the theater of operations, multiply our enemies, and ignore our allies. If Bush should adopt this strategy, it would be America and Israel against the Arab and Islamic world with Europe neutral and almost all of Asia rooting for our humiliation.

The neocons have also begun to injure their reputations and isolate themselves with the nastiness and irrationality of their attacks. French cannon once bore the inscription ultima ratio regum, the last argument of kings. The toxic charge of ?Anti-Semite!? has become the last argument of the neocons. But they have wheeled out that cannon too many times. People are less intimidated now. They have seen men look into its muzzle and walk away.

This is a time for truth. With a mighty and hostile Soviet Empire no longer militarily present in the Maghreb and Middle East, U.S. and Israeli strategic interests have ceased to coincide. And with nightly pictures of Palestinian suffering on Al Jazeera, they have begun to collide.

Thus between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives a breach has been opened and an irreconcilable conflict has arisen. We of the Old Right only have one country. We believe U.S. foreign policy must be determined by what is best for America. And what is best for America is what our forefathers taught: If you would preserve this Republic, stay out of foreign wars, avoid ?permanent alliances,? beware of ?passionate attachments? to nations not your own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:Q , I thought Pat was a Republican, one of your own CAD & Co? What gives???

I think you mistake Pat for a "normal" Conservative Republican. Which to anyone who has read PB or his views know he is not. Like I posted before - "He's a hardline protectionist and part of the Religious right." Kucinich is to the Democrats as PB is the Republicans. Both are on the far extremes of the party. Sure sometimes they both have a sane moment or two, but this piece by PB is just not any different from what he has said before - he isn't "turning over a new leaf" so to speak.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: sandorski
Pat has always held a few positions that are way out there, but on the whole the guy is quite brilliant and would make a decent President.

Ever since I've watched Pat on the Mc Laughlin Group, I've been quite impressed with him. He has some very good POV on a good range of issues (although a little nuts on a few, but who isn't? .) I often find myself agreeing with him more often than anyone else on the panel. I think he's been painted in the light of his more extreme views, but not in the totality of his opinions.

I dunno about prez though, but I'd pick him over Bush!

Ya, after I wrote that post I kinda cringed at the President comment too, but overall I agree with you. One thing about Pat is that you know where he stands and though his principles on Religion, Homosexuals, and a few other issues are hard to accept, he is a True Fiscal Conservative and holds an Old School American foreign policy philosophy. Both of those issues would be good for the US.

 

[Phokus]

Holy S***, Buchanan absolutely OWN frum and perle. LOL, i love it when the paleo-cons own the neo-cons

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Holy S***, Buchanan absolutely OWN frum and perle. LOL, i love it when the paleo-cons own the neo-cons

LOL!!!

 

[chess9]

Phokus:

Too funny!

Witling:

Great lines about ciphers. But Dari is a work in progress....

Buchanan has long been against "entangling alliances". He has a pretty strong isolationist bent, so the article is not surprising.

What has surprised me is how long he has kept his mouth shut on the talk shows. He's kept a lid on it when I know he's wanted to blast Bush with both barrels.

-RObert

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: alchemize
"We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America"

"The poor homosexuals -- they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution."

"Promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide."

PB Even scares a right wing neocon like myself!

Actually, I agrees with PB on those points too.

 

[Piano Man]

A little OT, but I remember there being a rumor that "Deep Throat" was most likely Pat Buchanan. Some college kids spent a whole year doing research and narrowed it down to 5 people with him being on top of the list. I think that would be schweet if it were really him.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
It must be upsidedown day in ~! and ~butville if they are hailing Pat Buchanan as "quite brilliant" and "downright reasonable" and "totally agree" with him.

CkG

It's not upside down day, it's just sad. Pat Buchanan has many ideas that make Strom Thurmond look like Mother Theresa. However, if he say one bad thing about someone in the Bush admin. he's got these hypocritical Bush haters swinging from his ball bag. I'm sure Sandorski's "brilliant" and "decent President" comment got him head of the line privledges for that honor. Someone, anyone for that matter, criticizes Bush or his admin. and you people are lining up to put a hickey on his ass. Pucker up girls, I hear Osama and Saddam said some bad things about Bush.


Edited: I misquoted one of the human suction cups.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
It must be upsidedown day in ~! and ~butville if they are hailing Pat Buchanan as "quite brilliant" and "downright reasonable" and "totally agree" with him.

CkG

It's not upside down day, it's just sad. Pat Buchanan has many ideas that make Strom Thurmond look like Mother Theresa. However, if he say one bad thing about someone in the Bush admin. he's got these hypocritical Bush haters swinging from his ball bag. I'm sure Sandorski's "brilliant President" comment got him head of the line privledges for that honor. Someone, anyone for that matter, criticizes Bush or his admin. and you people are lining up to put a hickey on his ass. Pucker up girls, I hear Osama and Saddam said some bad things about Bush.

I said no such thing.

 

[digitalsm]

Its funny Pat Buchanan ran on a pretty similar populist platform(economics and war, protectionism and isolationism)( that the democrats are trying to run on now, and people thought he was nuts...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
It must be upsidedown day in ~! and ~butville if they are hailing Pat Buchanan as "quite brilliant" and "downright reasonable" and "totally agree" with him.

CkG

It's not upside down day, it's just sad. Pat Buchanan has many ideas that make Strom Thurmond look like Mother Theresa. However, if he say one bad thing about someone in the Bush admin. he's got these hypocritical Bush haters swinging from his ball bag. I'm sure Sandorski's "brilliant President" comment got him head of the line privledges for that honor. Someone, anyone for that matter, criticizes Bush or his admin. and you people are lining up to put a hickey on his ass. Pucker up girls, I hear Osama and Saddam said some bad things about Bush.

I said no such thing.

you say it all the time. Don't try to be bashful.

 

[smashp]

Pat is an Intelligent Guy. He has a long history in politics and can really spot the people who ruin the conservative name. Part of the Reason he ownes Perle and Co. is he knows they are not conservative at all.


I will say it again, true conservatives and libertarians need to take back the republican party.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Its funny Pat Buchanan ran on a pretty similar populist platform(economics and war, protectionism and isolationism)( that the democrats are trying to run on now, and people thought he was nuts...

Pat was just a bit more extreme in his views then, though, eh?

It's not a black-and-white stance compared to those of the current candidates.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smashp
Pat is an Intelligent Guy. He has a long history in politics and can really spot the people who ruin the conservative name. Part of the Reason he ownes Perle and Co. is he knows they are not conservative at all.


I will say it again, true conservatives and libertarians need to take back the republican party.

We are trying However, the remedy is not voting for someone who doesn't hold any(or very very few) Conservative positions.
I choose to try to change things from within.

CkG

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Goddammit. Pat Buchanan is right and expresses a lot of the things I have been saying. Hell truly is freezing over.

Agreed, hell hath frozen over. It's sad when we have to turn to the likes of him for common sense.

<finishing article>

If death comes to the West it will be because we embraced a culture of death?birth control, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia. Western man is dying as Islamic man migrates north to await his passing and inherit his estate.

sounds like him, but overall he stays away from this right-wing crap. I also didn't expect him to quote Nietzsche, I didn't think he even knew who Nietzsche was.

I also thought he was a pure zionist, I was wrong about that one too.

Thanks for the good read.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: smashp
Pat is an Intelligent Guy. He has a long history in politics and can really spot the people who ruin the conservative name. Part of the Reason he ownes Perle and Co. is he knows they are not conservative at all.


I will say it again, true conservatives and libertarians need to take back the republican party.

We are trying However, the remedy is not voting for someone who doesn't hold any(or very very few) Conservative positions.
I choose to try to change things from within.

CkG

That hasn't worked and is not gonna work.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: smashp
Pat is an Intelligent Guy. He has a long history in politics and can really spot the people who ruin the conservative name. Part of the Reason he ownes Perle and Co. is he knows they are not conservative at all.


I will say it again, true conservatives and libertarians need to take back the republican party.

We are trying However, the remedy is not voting for someone who doesn't hold any(or very very few) Conservative positions.
I choose to try to change things from within.

CkG

That hasn't worked and is not gonna work.

I will not fail.

CkG