Replies

Precisely. Buchanan's folly lies in the fatc that he does not grasp the notion that that we FAILED to respond to earlier attacks in a manner that would have told those who conducted the probing attacks (and observers) that it would be a Very Bad Idea.

When Hitler started to violate the Versailles Treaty by militarizing the Rhineland, France did not respond. It was a mistake. Had they opposed him with force, or even LOOKED like they would do so, German generals would have probably deposed Hitler.

When the SS City of Flint was seized by a German warchip in October of 1939, had the United States responded forcefully, I think Hitler would have reconsidered his course of action. Instead, he thought we were weak and wouldn't stand up to him.

When Japan attacked the USS Panay, we did not respond. We accepted their apology and went on with business. They thought we were weak, and that we'd roll over if they hit us hard enough.

A perception of weakness only encourages bullies. That is what the Islamists are, when it comes down to it. We CANNOT afford to do that. Pat Buchanan's policy is that of a wimp - don't do anything to upset them, and hopefully, they will leave us alone.

I'd like to think we learned that lesson. Sadly, Buchanan's isolationist policy is appealing to some. I think that the neoconservatives are right about what needs to be done. In 1941, their solution was pretty much followed. We imposed REGIME CHANGE on Germany and Japan, and turned `em into demcoracies. A fitting response to tan unprovoked sneak attack.