USA is not wanted in Iraq - Pat Speaks

michaelh20

Senior member
Sep 4, 2000
482
0
0
I know ya'll don't like Pat that much, but it is surprising to hear this from a "conservative" person.

USA is not wanted in Iraq
Fri Nov 15, 7:36 AM ET
Patrick J. Buchanan

For some among our Beltway elite, even a U.S. invasion that effects regime change in Baghdad isn't enough. Their vision: a MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, a Pax Americana, a benevolent American empire in the Middle East. As with Hitler's Germany, we must ''de-Nazify'' all of the ''Islamo-fascist'' states -- Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Lebanon and Libya -- and tutor their people in the blessings of democracy and free markets.



What is wrong with this vision? Only this. It is a century too late. Jefferson's idea, that ''all just powers come from the consent of the governed,'' and Wilson's idea of the self-determination of peoples have taken root in the souls of men.


The West long ago lost the will to colonize, civilize and ''Christianize'' what Kipling called the ''lesser breeds without the law.'' The age of Western empires is over.


Lest we forget: America was born in a revolution against an empire. To emulate Rome would betray our heritage and dishonor the memory of the Founding Fathers. Nor is there the will to rule other nations among our people.


American empire is an intellectual construct of scribblers and think-tank denizens more familiar with the hazards of graduate school than of gunnery school. Americans won't send their sons to die for an empire concocted by talking heads whose boys won't be patrolling that empire.


Look at what became of the British in Palestine, the French in Algeria. Do we really want our own Battle of Algiers in Baghdad? Our own intifada? An American empire in the Islamic world would put us at endless war in that most volatile of regions, and with its most violent forces: Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism. Calls to jihad on America would echo in every mosque from Morocco to Malaysia.


Interventionism is the mother of terrorism. The killers of 9/11 were over here, because we were over there. Let us come home from a region where we are not wanted, and let the Islamic world work out its own destiny. As we see in Iran, where the youth are turning against the ayatollahs and toward the West, time is on our side.


As it was in the Cold War.


Patrick J. Buchanan is a syndicated columnist and co-editor of The American Conservative.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Sounds reasonable to me. If gas prices go up, then so be it. It'll push us to other energy sources faster.
 

MinorityReport

Senior member
Jul 2, 2002
425
0
0
At last some sense from the rigth wing conservative religious bigots of this nation.


Let them fight amongst thenselves ...in the meatime keep drilling until there is no more :)
 

justint

Banned
Dec 6, 1999
1,429
0
0
In this issue I do agree with Pat Buchanan, although I still think he is an anti-immigrant, mildly anti-semetic, ultra right wing rabble rouser.
 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Well written article. I defend whatever our Nation decides to do. But, I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Defend America against them, but let them destroy themselves if they wish.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
He's wrong and his comparison is off base. The current Islamic radicalism is a mirror image of the crusadaers of the 11th century. The Islamists believe that god has commanded our destruction because we don't believe what they do. They intend to destroy western civilization. By seeking to pacify them through giving them what they want we only serve to help them in their path. A prime example of this is Chechnya, the Russians gave concessions to the rebels and gave them semi-autonomy in the region and state. What did the rebels do? Blow up a building in mainland russia and kill 800 people. No matter what we conceed to them it will never be enough till our culture, our values and our way of life have been uterly destroyed.

We must grant them no quarter, we must pursue them to every hideout. If a country refuses to assist in stoping their actions and allows them to live unhindered in their country we MUST retaliate against that country. We must never rest until every last person ever trained in afghanistan or born in the radical movements in the region is dead. After the 2nd or 3rd attack the american people may realize this.
 

MinorityReport

Senior member
Jul 2, 2002
425
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
He's wrong and his comparison is off base. The current Islamic radicalism is a mirror image of the crusadaers of the 11th century. The Islamists believe that god has commanded our destruction because we don't believe what they do. They intend to destroy western civilization. By seeking to pacify them through giving them what they want we only serve to help them in their path. A prime example of this is Chechnya, the Russians gave concessions to the rebels and gave them semi-autonomy in the region and state. What did the rebels do? Blow up a building in mainland russia and kill 800 people. No matter what we conceed to them it will never be enough till our culture, our values and our way of life have been uterly destroyed.

We must grant them no quarter, we must pursue them to every hideout. If a country refuses to assist in stoping their actions and allows them to live unhindered in their country we MUST retaliate against that country. We must never rest until every last person ever trained in afghanistan or born in the radical movements in the region is dead. After the 2nd or 3rd attack the american people may realize this.


You have a point there but 2nd or 3rd attack will leave you wondering where to retaliate ? Afganisthan ? Germany ? China ? KSA ?
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Interventionism is the mother of terrorism. The killers of 9/11 were over here, because we were over there. Let us come home from a region where we are not wanted, and let the Islamic world work out its own destiny. As we see in Iran, where the youth are turning against the ayatollahs and toward the West, time is on our side.


Yes, time is on our side, but if we can get rid of a ruthless bastard who isn't afraid to gas his own country, then we can speed things up a bit.
 

MinorityReport

Senior member
Jul 2, 2002
425
0
0
Originally posted by: rudder
Interventionism is the mother of terrorism. The killers of 9/11 were over here, because we were over there. Let us come home from a region where we are not wanted, and let the Islamic world work out its own destiny. As we see in Iran, where the youth are turning against the ayatollahs and toward the West, time is on our side.


Yes, time is on our side, but if we can get rid of a ruthless bastard who isn't afraid to gas his own country, then we can speed things up a bit.

Why bother now ?
You lost the chance ..what guarantee there is that the post Saddam regime won't be as evil and turn their backs against us for a repeat of history ?

LMAO at Rambo III
 

CurtCold

Golden Member
Aug 15, 2002
1,547
0
0


I dunno when the American' Army became merconaries for hire, but it seems that way. To me there is no price that can be put on one single GI's head.



War with Iraq is a good question and that's why there is so much debate. I think even when inspectors come in, there will still be force used, just because "nothing will comply" with the satisfaction of the Bush Administration, and obviously they will be able to speculate that there are weapons of mass destruction at Saddams grasp no matter what they do or do not find.
 

MinorityReport

Senior member
Jul 2, 2002
425
0
0
Salute the men and women who serve the nation and sacrifice their lives so that we may live in peace and prosperity.


We will never let their efforts go wasted specialy for some Capaitalist's personal ambitions.

 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Pat has to take this stance, otherwise he is a hypocrit. Afterall, he is an isolationist and strongly believes in a nation's sovereignty.
 

darren

Senior member
Feb 26, 2000
401
0
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Pat has to take this stance, otherwise he is a hypocrit. Afterall, he is an isolationist and strongly believes in a nation's sovereignty.

isolationist he is.

 

hungrypete

Diamond Member
Aug 4, 2000
3,001
0
0
and let the Islamic world work out its own destiny

There is an important logic missing from this idea. They aren't just sitting around making cookies. They are sitting around gathering the old USSR's warheads and training thier children to be murderers. If you let the pot boil over, you are going to have to clean up a big mess.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: darren
Originally posted by: CPA Pat has to take this stance, otherwise he is a hypocrit. Afterall, he is an isolationist and strongly believes in a nation's sovereignty.
isolationist he is.

And in this instance correct
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: darren
Originally posted by: CPA Pat has to take this stance, otherwise he is a hypocrit. Afterall, he is an isolationist and strongly believes in a nation's sovereignty.
isolationist he is.

And in this instance correct


aaahhh, selective isolationalism.

 

bizmark

Banned
Feb 4, 2002
2,311
0
0
Originally posted by: darren
Originally posted by: CPA
Pat has to take this stance, otherwise he is a hypocrit. Afterall, he is an isolationist and strongly believes in a nation's sovereignty.

isolationist he is.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Could someone please explain what's wrong with "live and let live (or die)"? I want something like the Prime Directive in Star Trek..... why don't we as a nation try to come up with an overriding policy like that? I know that we've (we, collectively, the West; but the US is unfortunately the spiritual and physical inheritor of that legacy) already done enough damage as it is, and we'd do more by completely withdrawing, but there's got to be some middle ground that will allow us to gradually curtail our influence in places where it's not wanted.

Americans have taken a "You're either with us, or we'll kill you" stance, which I see as alarming, because it just creates the same feeling in those on the other side.
 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
It's actually a pretty classic conservative viewpoint. isolationism has long been the realm of the conservatives. although i'd generally consider myself a liberal, i think he's really got it right on this one.
 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
Originally posted by: Jellomancer
I TOLD you guys conservatives would be the ones against war. But "oh no you're confused" you said.

actually in general, "conservatives" are still for the war. they're just acting out of character.