No End to War. The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.

The American Conservative ^ | 1 march 04 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[Atlantic Friend]

I dunno...You've got to admit that seeing Perle demanding that heads roll because it turns out that HIS OWN arguments were, at best, flawed, is not a great tribute to the neocon cause.

[Howlin]

Pat never, ever fails to blame the Joooz.

[Poohbah]

Go easy on Pat. He lost an uncle in World War II.

Poor guy fell out of a guard tower at Auschwitz.

[Howlin]

Wow, definitely food for thought.

Only if you're starving for actual facts.

[general_re]

But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11?

I like to keep piles of oily rags and gas cans scattered all over my house. Plus, I like to let my kids play with matches. After all, if it were really dangerous, someone in my house would have gotten hurt by now, right?

Funny that PJB still has a few supporters when the basic premise - the equivocation that "no damage" is equivalent to "no threat" - is nothing more than an intellectual failure, an inability to reason properly. Ideologues are like that, though.

[Poohbah]

It's food for thought.

It's "pre-owned" food.

[roses of sharon]

Pat's friend Chrissy Matthews started this name calling of "neo-con", ie, a cabal (Jewish interests).

They are both drama-queens, very un-serious, and conspiracy oriented men.

Along with Pat's defense of Saddam and Sons, I'd say he sounds more like a Deanie-baby at this point.

[Howlin]

But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11?

To me, that very well could be the last question anybody EVER needs to hear from Pat Buchanan.

[Prodigal Son]

I knew from the title Pat wrote this one.

[MJY1288]

"Paleo" "Neo" or whatever, Pat Buchanan is a clueless idiot

[dead]

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Go easy on Pat. He lost an uncle in World War II.

Poor guy fell out of a guard tower at Auschwitz.

LOL! And Poobah scores with The Quote Of The Day! :)

[dixierat]

"9/11 was no different than Pearl Harbor, and if anything we've shown commendable restraint. "

You are very mistaken about that. Pearl Harbor was an act of war by the Japanese Nation against the U.S. The 9/11 attacks were TOTALLY different. Different in that they attacked civilian targets with the objective of terrorising our government. In this, they succeeded. The Japanese (especially Yamamoto) expected us to respond militarily. Al Qaeda had no reason to expect a military response. After all, they were used to Clintoon shooting a few cruise missles at them and that's what they prepared for.

Our response to 9/11 was restrained and proper up to the point of the invasion of Iraq. In WWII, Hitler made the mistake of turnming his back on England to invade the USSR. That proved fatal. We have made the POTENTIAL mistake of invading Iraq BEFORE we have TOTALLY eliminated Al Qaeda. That raises concern with me as to how focused we are on eliminating Al Qaeda. Letting a minor threat like Iraq distract us is dangerous.

[Atlantic Friend]

Ain't we all ?

[Filibuster_60]

So what do you suggest? Do we really have the stomach to follow the "manual for victory"? Talk is cheap. Bush is in a tight spot now because the public wasn't adequately prepared for the costs of rebuilding Iraq. I personally have no qualms about going it alone and screwing our UN and so-called allies - I'd probably accept the greatly expanded federal power, the hugely increased burden on taxpayers, and so on, as a necessary evil. But you can't sell necessary evils to the general public - especially not in election years.

At the end of the day, the real problem is not Buchanan and his ilk, but our fellow Americans who have been lulled back into a sense of security.

[hchutch]

Frum and Perle are right on how to win this war. Particularly since it started with a Pearl Harbor-style attack.

This rant by Buchanan would sound a lot better in the original French.

[prognostigaator]

Buchanan holds his enemies close..Perle and Drum that is.

[general_re]

So what do you suggest?

I have the luxury of defending the status quo - my suggestion is simply to stay the course. If someone else has an alternate prescription, it's up to them to present it and defend it.

[u-89]

Select bits from Arguments versus Fallacies

>"colleges and universities today courses are taught in basic reasoning, introductory logic, and clear thinking...

"There are also many informal fallacies that are discussed in these courses, ones that are a definite no-no when it comes to discussing issues rationally, with the aim of getting things right....

" informal fallacies appeals to emotions, argument by authority, reliance on popularity, pleading one’s case (which is to say, never looking at contrary evidence), the genetic fallacy (which means, considering where someone comes from who argues a point), begging the question (that is, assuming a conclusion before one has argued for it) and ad hominems (attacking the person) are the most widely studied.

"One should abandon all such phony methods and try to reason things out, debate issues based on getting the premises right and then arguing from those premises in a reasonable fashion, by means of valid, logical steps.

"...resort to the fallacious methods because, in part, those methods are a kind of short cut and offer quick fixes as opposed to requiring one to do hard work...

" if the popularity of my views clinches my point with gullible people, again, why bother doing the hard and often tedious work of laying out a serious argument? Or, if I can smear someone’s reputation with whom I disagree, I may win against the adversary without any further effort.

" Another approach...one that also violates the standards of rational argumentation, is to question an opponent’s motives.

"For my money, I simply assume that those who support views and policies I find wrong actually believe that those views and policies are sound ones. They are wrong, I am convinced. And my job, if I care to get involved in the discussion, is to show they are wrong – not that my view is more popular, that they are crooks, or that their motives are suspect. None of that matters, really, except if it’s been shown, already, that they are wrong and then one might wish to learn why they are wrong. But whether they are or are not wrong about any of their ideas or policies has absolutely nothing to do with such fallacious charges."

[Filibuster_60]

I don't agree on the Pearl Harbor part. In the radical Islamists we're not confronting a clear enemy distinctly aligned with nation-states. If the way to win is to force 1.3 billion Muslims to change their ways - we don't have the means to do that without cooperation from Muslims themselves. It was nice to nail Saddam but I'd have to agree with Pat it's now up to the Iraqis to rebuild their country - if they can't help themselves we'll only make things worse by staying.

The public doesn't want more preemptive invasions - that much is fairly obvious. We freepers can rant all we want about how Iraq was a just war despite the lack of WMD - but the damage has been done as far as the general electorate is concerned. No WMD means people now view Iraq as an optional invasion and it greatly strengthens the position of those who want to deal with North Korea, Syria & Iran instead of crushing them.