Here We Go Again

You wrote:

It was the earlier intervention in the Gulf War and the huge footprint on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia that lead directly to 9-11.

A) Yasser Arafat
B) Osama bin Laden
C) Ayatollah Khameini
D) Patrick J. Buchanan

Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments?

A) Dennis "Blind Date" Kucinich
B) Howard "Blind Rage" Dean
C) John "Blind Trust Fund" Kerry
D) Patrick J. "Blind Alley" Buchanan

Surveys show that Islamic people bear a deep resentment of U.S. dominance of their region and our one-sided support for Israel.

A) John Zogby
B) CAIR
C) George Lincoln Rockwell
D) Patrick J. Buchanan

My reply:

Besides my point about your strawmen argument, let me also point out that complex foreign policy matters rarely lend themselves well to mulitple choice exams (you're not a public university professor, are you?). An essay would have been more appropriate, but then, that would have required more forethought and less asinine (see footnote below, especially number 2) commentary.

Main Entry: as·i·nine
Etymology: Latin asininus, from asinus ass

1 : marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment (an asinine excuse)

2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass

PJB for all three.

I'll take my points in thousand-dollar bills, please.

Congratulations, you just received your baccalaureate. You'll probably go on to be a network journalist.

My main gripe about him is his throw them to the wolves stance on Israel.

Who, Buchanan or Bush? Both seem to agree on this much.

Thanks AM, I really wanted to see what useless rant he responded with.

As an aside, I notice more and more people are answering a post with multiple posts (see68, 69, 70). Is there a reason for that? I find it really annoying. Isn't it considered bad form?

Thanks for the help.

Well, for starters, if we stopped being an interventionist nation and let the middle east sort itself out, we wouldn't be drawing terrorists in the first place.

We have no stake in Iraq or anywhere in that God-forsaken region.

Make it public policy that any WMD launched by terrorists against the U.S. will result in a nuclear response from the U.S. against all "likely suspects" and that we will not wait for an investigation to determine the "guilty" party (think of Kennedy's "a rising tide lifts all boats"; well a WMD sinks all ships).

I support Israel, but we have no stake in the peace process. We let the Arabs know that we are not one-sided, by demonstrating that we could care less what happens in the Middle East. IOW, if you wanna' push Israel in the sea, just go ahead and try. We're not going to stop you. But neither will we "intervene" to stop Israel from responding.

We need to let the Arabs know that we will no longer be the surrogate mother for Israel. If they are crazy enough to attack Israel; we are not there anymore to "restrain" her. Israel could take care of her own problems if we got out of the way (this is where Buchanan and I part company, I am a non-interventionist across the board), and other Arab nations would think twice about provoking her, once the "backyard" was cleaned up.

The main point to convey is that we are neither supporters or opponents of Israel, that we simply have no stake in Middle-eastern politics. The only way to demonstrate this is to cut off all foreign aid to ALL nations (Israel and Arab nations included). Does anyone think that Israel needs our aid anymore (I think that in Israel's case, we are more the problem rather than the solution)? We're starting to sound like a Republic here...

Let's face it though, we've been an interventionist nation involved in the affairs of other sovereign nations for over the last half-century (some of this was legit due to the Cold War, others were just excuses for us to be Democracy/Empire makers, i.e. South Africa). Obviously the problems we have begun to reap are not going to go away overnight.

I really think that foreign aid and the distribution of American troops all over the globe are at the root of our problems.

And, we should restrict our immigration laws to keep out most (not all) of the people who come from Arab countries. Their culture is not compatible with ours, and they're not the ones sneaking across the Mexican border, so in terms of control, it could be done right now (of course, the border should be heavily guarded with armed soldiers, something we can surely afford if we can keep hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq for hundreds of billions of dollars).

Of course, I am a realist and know that nothing that I am espousing will ever see the light of day. We are too far along on the globalist "fast-track" to ever see the light of day for an American Republic again.

Honest debate must stifle you.

Some things are too stupid to warrant "honest debate". The ridiculous, by and large, gets what it deserves - ridicule.

Well, for starters, if we stopped being an interventionist nation and let the middle east sort itself out, we wouldn't be drawing terrorists in the first place.

That is about as absurd a statement as I've read here recently. If you should have learned one thing in the past few years, it is that they don't hate us because we are over there, they hate us because we are HERE, as in, on the planet. Look at what is happening in Europe right now, the Islamists are looking to completely take over some countries (see the current happenings in France). Their desire is conversion of the entire world, nothing more, nothing less.

No Chamberlainesque appeasement will change that.

For anyone to deny an Iraq/al-Qaeda connection after Stephen F. Hayes's reporting is a sign of serious denial.

Ten years of contacts and assistance were reported. Iraq was a state supporter of al-Qaeda.

For anyone to deny an Iraq/al-Qaeda connection after Stephen F. Hayes's reporting is a sign of serious denial.

I realize this is piling on, but I had to point this out:

Terrorist Behind September 11 Strike was Trained by Saddam

I saw that thread, or one like it, earlier. I don't know whether or not that there is a connection. To be honest with you, I hope there is. It would help me to sleep better at night. I don't think the Iraqi Council's claims have been substantiated or properly vetted however. I'd rather see someone in our government and/or intelligence community substantiate this.

Look, I'm not wanting to disbelieve our government. It is the claims of our government that have made me "not believe" in any connection, because they continually say we have no proof and disparage any subsequent intelligence discoveries (i.e. Atta's meeting in Prague, Nigerian uranium, etc.). If there is a connection, why would our own government seek to discredit the idea by calling this intelligence unreliable?

I WANT to believe. Give me a reason why I should believe.

BTW, I think the news today was great and I sincerely hope that the violence against our troops begins to deteriorate and that we are indeed successful in "establishing democracy" in Iraq (whether I believe that is the role of a constitutional Republic or not). I'm not rooting for failure just to be proven right. As a realist (I'm not an optimist by nature), I think the goal may be unobtainable, but what do I know? I'm just a dork behind a computer screen.

That is about as absurd a statement as I've read here recently. If you should have learned one thing in the past few years, it is that they don't hate us because we are over there, they hate us because we are HERE, as in, on the planet. Look at what is happening in Europe right now, the Islamists are looking to completely take over some countries (see the current happenings in France). Their desire is conversion of the entire world, nothing more, nothing less.

No Chamberlainesque appeasement will change that.

If they take us over, it will be because of our stupid immigration laws. If what you're saying is true, then why are we letting them into our country in droves?

Likewise, France doesn't have a "takeover" problem; it has an immigration problem, although they wouldn't consider it a problem, because they are a bunch of appeasers. So France is probably not a good example, since it's hard to rape the willing.

I'm not denying the threat that fanatical Islamifacism represents to the world; I just think we should go about the solution differently. I believe the Reagan model of containment could work here too. Obviously, you must too. According to your own logic, the only way to defeat this threat is to invade and occupy every Muslim nation on earth (or at least Iran, Syria, Libya and Yemen). This is not realistic.