No, It's Not 'Our' War: Pat Buchanan

[dilloduck]

Nope, speaking to you and your ilk. Anyhow, you don't want 'lecture' nor do I feel like doing so.

You've been sreeching from I don't know how long, that there was no reason to be aiding Israel. If you had your way, they'd be gone now. Do you think we'd be safer?

Never mind.

No--I have been asking WHY Israel recieves more foreign aid than all other countries combined and what they use it on. I have never advocated the destruction of Israel. You have taken my questions and erroneously come to the conclusion that I am anti-semtitic. Get over it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

God almighty I wish he'd run again.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51164

Sometimes I suspect they allow Pat to speak because if he weren't out there helping to blow off steam on the Israel issue, the real right would pop a cork and stage a coup and all the neocons would be hanging from trees.

He'd need to run for the Democrats. Being a 'Hate America Right' member he's got more in common with the 'Hate America Left' crowd.

 

[trobinett]

Damn, calm the fuck down.

WE, must, and if history repeats itself, as so many say, be concerned with OUR future, then we have no choice, but to support the Israelis.

The rest of these COMPLETELY out of control people, can't, won't, and have NO intention of doing the "right thing". Never have, never will, what part of that statement don't the rest of you people understand?

Let me make myself completely clear on this ONE point, if I were in charge, you would ALREADY be looking at a beautiful sunset, the oranges, and the reds would be breath taking, and except for some bothersome protests from the feel good boys, and girls, this conflict would be OVER......

 

[Gunny]

No...no, it sounds like he's firmly on the side of the fence that is pro-USA, not pro-Israel.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we are at war with "terrorism" in general, not just one specific terrorist organization. I also believe Hezbollah fits that bill by all definitions.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

If we were at war with terrorism in general, we'd occupy Pakistan and Libya instead of allying with them. I suspect that the war we're in has more to do with boxing in Russia and China with a ring of bases.

He'd need to run for the Democrats. Being a 'Hate America Right' member he's got more in common with the 'Hate America Left' crowd.

Yeah dude, Pat-freaking-Buchanan totally hates america, not a policy enacted by america's government.

 

[dilloduck]

If we were at war with terrorism in general, we'd occupy Pakistan and Libya instead of allying with them. I suspect that the war we're in has more to do with boxing in Russia and China with a ring of bases.

How do you know we won't go there next? I don't recall any rule that we have to attack every damn terrorist nation at once or for that matter take them out in any particular order.

 

[Gunny]

If we were at war with terrorism in general, we'd occupy Pakistan and Libya instead of allying with them. I suspect that the war we're in has more to do with boxing in Russia and China with a ring of bases.



Yeah dude, Pat-freaking-Buchanan totally hates america, not a policy enacted by america's government.

Lybia has renounced terrorism, and Qadaffi has come crawling.

Pakistan has denounced terrorism, and is at least half-assing fighting against it.

 

[Hobbit]

You know, this 'not our war' argument is what kept us from entering WWII until our battleships got shot up. Same thing for WWI.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

WWI was not our war and never would have been our war--until our government forbid the German government from running newspaper ads warning about the Lusitania, a cargo ship that was full of ammunition. Then somehow the Wilson administration figured out that american citizens had a right to travel into foreign war zones through well-known U-boat blockades aboard ammunition ships, without suffering a scratch.

WWII did not have to be our war either--even as we began shipping ammunition to Britain, German U-boats avoided american ships. Then a communist sympathizer named Franklin Delano Roosevelt figured that since the Krauts wouldn't take the bait, maybe the Japs would. So, we placed a gasoline embargo on Japan, lined up a stuipid number of boats at Pearl Harbor despite the pleas of experienced Naval officers, sacked Navy men who objected, and ignored Jap radio transmissions which had been cracked months prior.

 

[Hobbit]

WWI was not our war and never would have been our war--until our government forbid the German government from running newspaper ads warning about the Lusitania, a cargo ship that was full of ammunition. Then somehow the Wilson administration figured out that american citizens had a right to travel into foreign war zones through well-known U-boat blockades aboard ammunition ships, without suffering a scratch.

WWII did not have to be our war either--even as we began shipping ammunition to Britain, German U-boats avoided american ships. Then a communist sympathizer named Franklin Delano Roosevelt figured that since the Krauts wouldn't take the bait, maybe the Japs would. So, we placed a gasoline embargo on Japan, lined up a stuipid number of boats at Pearl Harbor despite the pleas of experienced Naval officers, sacked Navy men who objected, and ignored Jap radio transmissions which had been cracked months prior.

The first paragraph, I might buy. The second one sounds like a conspiracy theory and I'd like to see a more credible source on it. Last I heard, we slapped on the oil embargo because Japan was taking over southeast Asia and we didn't want to supply such a brutal expansion, and we lined up the battleships and planes to protect them from infiltrators and until the Japanese invented one, there wasn't a torpedo that cruised shallow enough to hit a ship docked at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese also carried out that attack on full radio silence, so there were no transmissions to intercept.

 

[dilloduck]

WWI was not our war and never would have been our war--until our government forbid the German government from running newspaper ads warning about the Lusitania, a cargo ship that was full of ammunition. Then somehow the Wilson administration figured out that american citizens had a right to travel into foreign war zones through well-known U-boat blockades aboard ammunition ships, without suffering a scratch.

WWII did not have to be our war either--even as we began shipping ammunition to Britain, German U-boats avoided american ships. Then a communist sympathizer named Franklin Delano Roosevelt figured that since the Krauts wouldn't take the bait, maybe the Japs would. So, we placed a gasoline embargo on Japan, lined up a stuipid number of boats at Pearl Harbor despite the pleas of experienced Naval officers, sacked Navy men who objected, and ignored Jap radio transmissions which had been cracked months prior.

Nothing HAS to be our war. We could just sit on our asses and let some other civilization just take ours and do whatever they want with it. Problem is--some of us sort of like it the way it is.

 

[Gunny]

WWI was not our war and never would have been our war--until our government forbid the German government from running newspaper ads warning about the Lusitania, a cargo ship that was full of ammunition. Then somehow the Wilson administration figured out that american citizens had a right to travel into foreign war zones through well-known U-boat blockades aboard ammunition ships, without suffering a scratch.

WWII did not have to be our war either--even as we began shipping ammunition to Britain, German U-boats avoided american ships. Then a communist sympathizer named Franklin Delano Roosevelt figured that since the Krauts wouldn't take the bait, maybe the Japs would. So, we placed a gasoline embargo on Japan, lined up a stuipid number of boats at Pearl Harbor despite the pleas of experienced Naval officers, sacked Navy men who objected, and ignored Jap radio transmissions which had been cracked months prior.

Right.

Wilson admonished Kaiser Wilhelm for attacking our ships, and he nacked down, then inexplicably resumed attacking them. Doesn't matter what the cargo was, and the Lusitania was the LAST straw, not the first. It was an act of war, plain and simple.

The embargo against Japan was for its ruthless imperialism in mainland Asia, not some uncorroborated conspiracy theory. They attacked us. Again, an act of war.

To tie it all up neatly, we did not have troops on the ground engaged in combat operations against murdering scumbag jihadists. THEY flew our own planes into the WTC. An act of war.

Seems to be a single, common denominator here. We get attacked, and we retaliate. Then along comes some revisionist and wants to rewrite the whole history.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Wilson admonished Kaiser Wilhelm for attacking our ships, and he nacked down, then inexplicably resumed attacking them. Doesn't matter what the cargo was, and the Lusitania was the LAST straw, not the first. It was an act of war, plain and simple.

When US citizens decide to board a known munitions boat headed into a known U-boat blockade into foreign waters during a war, they take their lives into their own hands. The US government should not waste one soldier's life protecting them in foreign lands, and certainly not 117,000 lives.

The embargo against Japan was for its ruthless imperialism in mainland Asia, not some uncorroborated conspiracy theory. They attacked us. Again, an act of war.

We were perfectly happy to sell gas to Japan as they were beginning their bloody imperialism. It sucks that China was invaded, but wars happen all over the world, and it should not be america's job to play globo-cop for the entire world.

Also, the "uncorroborated" conspiracy theory is extremely well documented in The New Dealer's War and Day of Deceit. The bibliography in DoD is about 70 pages long, with scanned documents. The idea of putting an american boat in harm's way and then acting outraged when it's attacked is not some wacky theory--it's been a favorite tactic of our government, in the Civil War, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. Dictators can attack whoever they want; when politicians in democracies want war, they have to let the other guy shoot first to gain the support of the public.

To tie it all up neatly, we did not have troops on the ground engaged in combat operations against murdering scumbag jihadists. THEY flew our own planes into the WTC. An act of war.

Aside from stationing troops in Arabia and placing brutal sanctions against Iraq (which predictably hurt the Iraqi people but not Saddam), there's always this:

1949--Syria
1952--Egypt
1953--Iran
1958--Iraq
1958--Lebanon
1969--Libya
1980--Iraq
1983--Lebanon
1986--Libya
1991--Iraq & Kuwait
1995--Afghanistan
1996--Iraq
1998--The Sudan & Afghanistan

http://www.mises.org/story/818

But yeah, the US government was just minding it's own business and engaging in isolationism.

Seems to be a single, common denominator here. We get attacked, and we retaliate. Then along comes some revisionist and wants to rewrite the whole history.

No, the common denominator is:

1) The US government persues an interventionist foreign policy, but maybe it's not blared across the headlines every day

2) US troops or citizens are attacked

3) Scam artist politicians, always hungry for more power and bigger budgets (at home and abroad), pretend that Step 1 never happened, and Step 2 is the inevitable result of our isolationism

4) People don't remember that Step 1 ever happened, and only learn about Step 2 in their State-funded, Government-approved history class

5) Since people are now sure that Step 2 is the result of noninterventionism and neutrality, they now vote for fearmongering politicians, who place more troops abroad. Over time, many politicians may actually believe their own foolishness, because of what they learned in Step 4 when they were schoolkids.

Repeat Step 1.

 

[Gunny]

When US citizens decide to board a known munitions boat headed into a known U-boat blockade into foreign waters during a war, they take their lives into their own hands. The US government should not waste one soldier's life protecting them in foreign lands, and certainly not 117,000 lives.

That the Lusitania was a known munitions boat by those who travelled on it is after the fact revisionism.

We were perfectly happy to sell gas to Japan as they were beginning their bloody imperialism. It sucks that China was invaded, but wars happen all over the world, and it should not be america's job to play globo-cop for the entire world.

Where've you been since the Spanish-American War where the precedent that we ARE going to play gobo-cop was set?

Also, the "uncorroborated" conspiracy theory is extremely well documented in The New Dealer's War and Day of Deceit. The bibliography in DoD is about 70 pages long, with scanned documents. The idea of putting an american boat in harm's way and then acting outraged when it's attacked is not some wacky theory--it's been a favorite tactic of our government, in the Civil War, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. Dictators can attack whoever they want; when politicians in democracies want war, they have to let the other guy shoot first to gain the support of the public.

Well documented speculation by conspiracy theorists.

Aside from stationing troops in Arabia and placing brutal sanctions against Iraq (which predictably hurt the Iraqi people but not Saddam), there's always this:

1949--Syria
1952--Egypt
1953--Iran
1958--Iraq
1958--Lebanon
1969--Libya
1980--Iraq
1983--Lebanon
1986--Libya
1991--Iraq & Kuwait
1995--Afghanistan
1996--Iraq
1998--The Sudan & Afghanistan

http://www.mises.org/story/818

But yeah, the US government was just minding it's own business and engaging in isolationism.

I don't recall that I said the US was isolationist. You isolationist whackos haven't been en vogue for quite awhile.

And your little list of deploying US troops doesn't address the point I made. It is merely a historical listing of troop deployments. What is obvious is the reasons those troops were deployed. None of the deployments were for the specific reason of defeating Islamic terrorists in combat.

And, you left out the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s.
No, the common denominator is:

1) The US government persues an interventionist foreign policy, but maybe it's not blared across the headlines every day

2) US troops or citizens are attacked

3) Scam artist politicians, always hungry for more power and bigger budgets (at home and abroad), pretend that Step 1 never happened, and Step 2 is the inevitable result of our isolationism

4) People don't remember that Step 1 ever happened, and only learn about Step 2 in their State-funded, Government-approved history class

5) Since people are now sure that Step 2 is the result of noninterventionism and neutrality, they now vote for fearmongering politicians, who place more troops abroad. Over time, many politicians may actually believe their own foolishness, because of what they learned in Step 4 when they were schoolkids.

Repeat Step 1.

Absurd. Dream that up yourself, or are you a member of a group of cynical conspiracy theorists?