Is Bush misdiagnosing the malady?

[CivilLiberty]

This from Pat Buchanan:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42777

If a doctor – even a God-fearing, Bible-believing evangelical Christian – misdiagnoses a mortal malady, there is a probability the medicine he prescribes will do no good and the surgery he proposes may worsen the patient's condition.

Rereading the president's Inaugural and State of the Union, this seems an apt metaphor for U.S. war policy.

In his Inaugural, President Bush described Sept. 11 as "a day of fire ... when freedom came under attack." But was it really freedom that was under attack on 9-11? Was bin Laden really saying, "Give up your freedom!"? Or was he saying, "Get out of our world!"?

If al-Qaida was attacking our freedom, which of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights does Bush believe bin Laden wishes to abolish?

No, al-Qaida was no more attacking our "freedom" when it drove those planes into the World Trade Center than were Iroquois, Sioux and Apache attacking our freedom when they massacred settlers on the frontier. Like Islamists, the Indians saw us as defiling their sacred soil, dispossessing them, imposing a hated hegemony. They cared not about our Constitution – they wanted us off their land.

If we were truly being attacked for our beliefs, and not our behavior, the war would have no end. Yet, all the other guerrilla and terror wars against Western powers there have ended. How?

When the British left Palestine, Irgun terror ended. When the French left Algeria, FLN terror ended. When Israel left Lebanon, Hezbollah terror largely ended. These countries chose to resolve their terror problem by giving up their occupations and letting go. Their perceived imperial presence had been the cause of the terror war, and when they departed and went home, the wars faded away.

The president says we must fight them over there, so we do not have to fight them over here. But, before we invaded Iraq, not one American had been killed by an Iraqi in a dozen years. Since we invaded, 1,500 Americans have died and the number of insurgents has multiplied from 5,000 to 20,000. By Don Rumsfeld's own metric, our intervention is creating more terrorists than we are killing. We are fighting a guerrilla army that our own invasion called into being.

Do our Saudi friends whose necks are now on the line agree with us that terrorists attack America because of our democratic principles? Or do they believe al-Qaida, when it says it is attacking us because of our Middle East policies and presence? It would appear to be the latter. For Riyadh has lately asked us to remove our planes from Prince Sultan Air Base and our troops from Saudi soil.

Even the Saudis believe they are safer without the provocative presence of U.S. troops?

Americans have often fought wars over lands we coveted or deemed to be ours: the French and Indian War, Jackson's invasion of Florida, the war of Texas independence, the Mexican-American War. Yet, never has an enemy attacked us because we were free. Who told the president this was what 9-11 was all about?

Consider the Bush panacea for peace: democracy, rule by the people and by governments that reflect the popular will.

But what makes Bush believe this would advance peace or U.S. vital interests? Does the Arab street share our love for Israel or Bush's admiration for Sharon as a "man of peace"? Do Arab masses revere Bush, or bin Laden?

When free elections were held in Algeria, the people voted for an Islamic republic. In Gaza, they just voted 70 percent for Hamas. Moderate Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Arafat, but only because Marwan Barghouti, now serving a life sentence in Israel, declined to run. In Iraq, the Shia voted as an ayatollah told them to vote, so they could take over the country from the Sunni.

Democracy is America's panacea. But if the abdication of the kings, sheiks, sultans and autocrats in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the Gulf states would be good for America, why is the fall of these royal houses and of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt also sought by bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood? What assurances are there, in the history of the region, that when the kings depart, democrats will arise?

President Bush's advisers were 100 percent wrong about what would happen in Iraq, but perhaps they are right now. If not, however, he and we may discover that the alternative to autocracy is not democracy, but Islamic fundamentalism or anarchy, and Bush may find himself with the epitaph penned a century ago by an old imperialist who knew the region well:

"A fool lies here / Who tried to hustle the East."

 

[CivilLiberty]

Oh my, all those people that died that day and for what? because they were invading Bin Ladens turf! get a life you baboon, that was one of the dumbest post I've seen lately!

I don't think that's Buchanan's point - He's not excusing Bin Laden at all. But he IS pointing out that Bin Laden was NOT attacking our "freedom". The attack was retaliation for our foreign policy. This is irrefutable.

His second point is that how do we *know* that democracy will function better in the middle east? We don't. Let's hope for our sake it does.


A

 

[freeandfun1]

I don't think that's Buchanan's point - He's not excusing Bin Laden at all. But he IS pointing out that Bin Laden was NOT attacking our "freedom". The attack was retaliation for our foreign policy. This is irrefutable.

His second point is that how do we *know* that democracy will function better in the middle east? We don't. Let's hope for our sake it does.


A

Since we don't know, we shouldn't do anything?

 

[dilloduck]

Since we don't know, we shouldn't do anything?

That sounds amazingly like the stand on abortion that CL is do adamantly against

 

[CivilLiberty]

Since we don't know, we shouldn't do anything?

You mean should we despotically overthrow governments and "install" democracies in these societies at our whim? I don't know that this is sound foreign policy.


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

That sounds amazingly like the stand on abortion that CL is do adamantly against

Huh?


A

 

[freeandfun1]

You mean should we despotically overthrow governments and "install" democracies in these societies at our whim? I don't know that this is sound foreign policy.


A

answer the question. doing nothing is what led to all this crap. defending Israel, a nation that formed under the guidelines of the UN got us attacked. So you are saying that we should just keep turning the other cheek and do nothing? Just keep take'n it in the rear and hope that some day they stop?

Really, what do you recommend oh mighty and all knowing?

 

[freeandfun1]

You mean should we despotically overthrow governments and "install" democracies in these societies at our whim? I don't know that this is sound foreign policy.


A

Also, how does one "install" a democracy? Isn't that an oxymoron? If the people don't want a democracy, they will vote against one and form a theocracy or whatever they want. We provided them with the opportunity to DECIDE if they want a democracy or not.

 

[CivilLiberty]

answer the question. doing nothing is what led to all this crap. defending Israel, a nation that formed under the guidelines of the UN got us attacked. So you are saying that we should just keep turning the other cheek and do nothing? Just keep take'n it in the rear and hope that some day they stop?

Really, what do you recommend oh mighty and all knowing?

I'm not certain that defending Israel - a nation with their own abuses and expansionist policies - is in our best interest.

However, that's NOT what I'm getting at.

It depends on what "doing nothing" you mean. Yes, we should have done ALOT to preemptively remove bin Laden and the government that harbored him (Talaban). But this does not translate to Iraq.

A

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm not certain that defending Israel - a nation with their own abuses and expansionist policies - is in our best interest.

However, that's NOT what I'm getting at.

It depends on what "doing nothing" you mean. Yes, we should have done ALOT to preemptively remove bin Laden and the government that harbored him (Talaban). But this does not translate to Iraq.

A

We should not defend a nation that is trying to protect themselves from constant attack? A country that was formed BY/WITH THE UNITED NATIONS?

OBL, Saddam, everybody said that our defense of Israel is what has led to their attacks on us. So are you honestly suggesting that we should turn our backs on Israel? If so, fine. But then what? When they are attacked by the Islamic world and the Islamic world begins their genocide of the Israeli people are we supposed to just sit on the sidelines and watch?

Even if we got rid of OBL today, do you suggest that all attacks against the US would stop?

 

[CivilLiberty]

We should not defend a nation that is trying to protect themselves from constant attack? A country that was formed BY/WITH THE UNITED NATIONS?

Perhaps the UN is part of the problem.

OBL, Saddam, everybody said that our defense of Israel is what has led to their attacks on us. So are you honestly suggesting that we should turn our backs on Israel? If so, fine. But then what? When they are attacked by the Islamic world and the Islamic world begins their genocide of the Israeli people are we supposed to just sit on the sidelines and watch?

Even if we got rid of OBL today, do you suggest that all attacks against the US would stop?

While I'm not necessarily saying we should "turn our backs" in Israel, I am saying that as we are supporting them with 3.5 Billion a year, and military support, and that they (Israel) have thanked us by going back on peace treaties, continuing expansionist policies, and even attacking our navy vessels on some cases - well fuck them. They have exceeded the land the UN assigned to them, and broken law after law.

I'm not saying we dismiss them, I am saying we need to kick them into line, or walk away entirely.

A

 

[Johnney]

We should not defend a nation that is trying to protect themselves from constant attack? A country that was formed BY/WITH THE UNITED NATIONS?

OBL, Saddam, everybody said that our defense of Israel is what has led to their attacks on us. So are you honestly suggesting that we should turn our backs on Israel? If so, fine. But then what? When they are attacked by the Islamic world and the Islamic world begins their genocide of the Israeli people are we supposed to just sit on the sidelines and watch?

Even if we got rid of OBL today, do you suggest that all attacks against the US would stop?

maybe not, but wouldnt it jsut be an awesome feeling that we finally got the fucker?

 

[freeandfun1]

Perhaps the UN is part of the problem.



While I'm not necessarily saying we should "turn our backs" in Israel, I am saying that as we are supporting them with 3.5 Billion a year, and military support, and that they (Israel) have thanked us by going back on peace treaties, continuing expansionist policies, and even attacking our navy vessels on some cases - well fuck them. They have exceeded the land the UN assigned to them, and broken law after law.

I'm not saying we dismiss them, I am saying we need to kick them into line, or walk away entirely.

A

Thank Carter for the billions to Israel and the billions to Egypt. It was all part of the Camp David Accords.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about Israel, but you are sorely misinformed. I guess you figure the Palestinians have been adhering to the peace treaties? I guess when attacked, you figure Israel had no right to form a buffer between them and those that repeatedly attacked them. Man, I cannot believe how many "educated" people have no clue about the ME.

And johnny, yes, it would give me great pleasure if we caught the SOB. But I don't see catching him as the stop-gap measure that stops the Islamofacists from killing Americans.

 

[Johnney]

Thank Carter for the billions to Israel and the billions to Egypt. It was all part of the Camp David Accords.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about Israel, but you are sorely misinformed. I guess you figure the Palestinians have been adhering to the peace treaties? I guess when attacked, you figure Israel had no right to form a buffer between them and those that repeatedly attacked them. Man, I cannot believe how many "educated" people have no clue about the ME.

And johnny, yes, it would give me great pleasure if we caught the SOB. But I don't see catching him as the stop-gap measure that stops the Islamofacists from killing Americans.

shit id love to have him tied up in my basement....lol
id skin him an inch as a time, from his toes up.

 

[theim]

Well, I hate to disagree with such a great modern Thinker as Pat Buchanen :roll: ...

If a doctor – even a God-fearing, Bible-believing evangelical Christian – misdiagnoses a mortal malady, there is a probability the medicine he prescribes will do no good and the surgery he proposes may worsen the patient's condition.

Rereading the president's Inaugural and State of the Union, this seems an apt metaphor for U.S. war policy.

yadda yadda please get to it

In his Inaugural, President Bush described Sept. 11 as "a day of fire ... when freedom came under attack." But was it really freedom that was under attack on 9-11? Was bin Laden really saying, "Give up your freedom!"? Or was he saying, "Get out of our world!"?

Semantics. You kill 3000 innocent people (or little capitalist Nazis for all you neo-Marxists out there) you die. Plain and simple.

If al-Qaida was attacking our freedom, which of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights does Bush believe bin Laden wishes to abolish?

Any which contradict Sharia Law, which is pretty much all of them.

No, al-Qaida was no more attacking our "freedom" when it drove those planes into the World Trade Center than were Iroquois, Sioux and Apache attacking our freedom when they massacred settlers on the frontier. Like Islamists, the Indians saw us as defiling their sacred soil, dispossessing them, imposing a hated hegemony. They cared not about our Constitution – they wanted us off their land.

If we were truly being attacked for our beliefs, and not our behavior, the war would have no end. Yet, all the other guerrilla and terror wars against Western powers there have ended. How?

I have a feeling we're about to find out.

When the British left Palestine, Irgun terror ended. When the French left Algeria, FLN terror ended. When Israel left Lebanon, Hezbollah terror largely ended.

Take notice. No one considers France or Britain a great world power, except the French and British. And Isreal retreating from Lebannon has done damn near jack shit to end terror.

These countries chose to resolve their terror problem by giving up their occupations and letting go. Their perceived imperial presence had been the cause of the terror war, and when they departed and went home, the wars faded away.

In the case of Isreal, no. But yeah, for the others. When they gave up and ran with their tails between their legs, their wars faded away.

And so did their spheres of influence.

The president says we must fight them over there, so we do not have to fight them over here. But, before we invaded Iraq, not one American had been killed by an Iraqi in a dozen years. Since we invaded, 1,500 Americans have died and the number of insurgents has multiplied from 5,000 to 20,000.

And when we invaded Germany in WWII, no American had been killed by a German in 30 years. Damn that Roosevelt! ALL THOSE DEAD BOYS ARE ON HIS HANDS!!!!!!!!! WHY THE HELL WERE WE INVADING FRANCE AND NORTH AFRICA WHEN IT WAS JAPAN WHO ATTACKED US!!!!! WOE IS US!!!!!

By Don Rumsfeld's own metric, our intervention is creating more terrorists than we are killing. We are fighting a guerrilla army that our own invasion called into being.

stats, please, because I just saw a report saying 90% of the insurgent backing is from Former Regime Elements, the Fedayeen, ex-Baathists, etc.

Do our Saudi friends whose necks are now on the line agree with us that terrorists attack America because of our democratic principles? Or do they believe al-Qaida, when it says it is attacking us because of our Middle East policies and presence? It would appear to be the latter. For Riyadh has lately asked us to remove our planes from Prince Sultan Air Base and our troops from Saudi soil.

Even the Saudis believe they are safer without the provocative presence of U.S. troops?

Shortly put: The Saudis are not our friends and, yeah screw them.

Americans have often fought wars over lands we coveted or deemed to be ours: the French and Indian War, Jackson's invasion of Florida, the war of Texas independence, the Mexican-American War. Yet, never has an enemy attacked us because we were free. Who told the president this was what 9-11 was all about?

That IS what is about dumb ass. Just because the Mexicans, French or Spanish never tried to impose Sharia Law on everybody doesn't that bin Laden doesn't desire to.

Consider the Bush panacea for peace: democracy, rule by the people and by governments that reflect the popular will.

and we can't have that now, can we.

But what makes Bush believe this would advance peace or U.S. vital interests? Does the Arab street share our love for Israel or Bush's admiration for Sharon as a "man of peace"? Do Arab masses revere Bush, or bin Laden?

The Arabs love the terrorist Yasser Arafat as a god. They have been brainwashed by enforced Sharia Law their entire lives. It is no wonder they recoil at first from the thought of freedom. But ask the Iraqis who just voted whom they prefer.

When free elections were held in Algeria, the people voted for an Islamic republic. In Gaza, they just voted 70 percent for Hamas. Moderate Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Arafat, but only because Marwan Barghouti, now serving a life sentence in Israel, declined to run. In Iraq, the Shia voted as an ayatollah told them to vote, so they could take over the country from the Sunni.

See above answer. And would those be the same Sunni who dominated and raped the country for the last 20 years and have been blowing up everything lately? I feel sooooo sorry for them. Really.

Democracy is America's panacea. But if the abdication of the kings, sheiks, sultans and autocrats in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the Gulf states would be good for America, why is the fall of these royal houses and of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt also sought by bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Because he sees them as lap dogs to America. That is how screwed up he is.

What assurances are there, in the history of the region, that when the kings depart, democrats will arise?

Afgahistan and Iraq in the last year, for two.

President Bush's advisers were 100 percent wrong about what would happen in Iraq, but perhaps they are right now. If not, however, he and we may discover that the alternative to autocracy is not democracy, but Islamic fundamentalism or anarchy, and Bush may find himself with the epitaph penned a century ago by an old imperialist who knew the region well:

"A fool lies here / Who tried to hustle the East."

Seeing as how the Arab world hasn't evolved much over a century, I think it's safe to say that if that old imperialist had an arsenal of stealth aircraft and satellite guidance systems that can ram a JDAM up a guy's ass, his saying would've been different.

==================================================

Buchanen is a lunatic. Nobody likes him.