Posted on 05/11/2005 9:08:36 AM PDT by EveningStar
Totally in agreement over here.
I think these are just a bunch of Pat haters. If Ann Coulter wrote the same article, she'd be praised.
I believe it was obvious we would have, thus Pearl Harbor.
I believe that our participation in WWII had to happen. We could not count on the Soviets to crush the Nazis, to prevent them from developing The Bomb, to prevent the Holocaust. The participation of the US in WWII ensured the defeat of the Axis powers.
However, once the War was over, we should have told the Soviets to take a hike.
We can only speculate whether or not Hitler would have wanted to conquer the world if France and England hadn't made those mistakes. My guess is that he would. . .these 'mistakes' would not have made Hitler change from wanting to only take over a few piddly little countries to wanting to take over the whole world.
In other words, we would have eventually had to fight Hitler anyway, and how many MORE would have died if we had waited even longer than we did?
They most certainly would have been able to do so if no one fought them. And to say Germany had 'no ability'? I'd have to disagree with that considering the pounding that Britain took.
"so the notion that "we'd all be speaking German now" if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in World War II is utterly ludicrous."
If we had all sat around on our hands and let Hitler do as he wished, you bet we'd be talking German now.
Right. And I share your sense of sadness. More and more, we seem to be drifting into one of those periods in history, when there is a sharp rise in fanaticism. The consequences can be very ugly indeed.
As one scans the responses, every time there is a posting that challenges certain presumptions, or appears to challenge certain presumptions, held sacred by dogmatists, reason goes out the window, and the slurs and insults follow. The participants in the flood of abuse, sadly, do not have a clue, how their venom turns off those still able to reason, who surf by, looking for intellectual challenge, rather than rant.
Thank you for continuing to be a reasoned voice in whatever thread you participate.
William Flax
You have expressed my exact feelings. There is only one way to think, and you will be shot down for suggesting otherwise.
In general it seems that we as conservatives are too concerned with distinguishing ourselves from the liberals, and this leads us to supporting any "conservative" policy, regardless of how reckless or liberal it really is. We are so engrossed in this Democrat/Republican fight that we have lost sight of how they are both dragging us down to the bottom. Apparently this outcome is okay for a lot of people, so long as they can maintain their rep as a Republican and not some dirty Democrat.
On another note, I just found your web page on conservative issues and debate; looks like I have a lot of reading to do now! Very impressive.
A lot of Americans actually were speaking German until 1917. At least around here. They fought in the Mexican war, the Civil War, the Spanish War and regrettably alongside the french . They were very good citizens.
I believe all your hypotheses hinge on this assumption.
One way or another, I don't believe we would have allowed this to happen.
Are there not other blackguards of history to whom the same could be applied?
THE ARTICLE WAS NOT ABOUT THE NAZIS!
The article is about power and the contest for it on the European continent. There is not a scintilla of evidence of Nazi-philosophy love, nor of Jewish hate in it.
But, this thread is typical of the way Buchanan has been mugged over the years by the twisting of whatever smallest swipe he takes at Roosevelt and his treasure trove of interventionist icons and ideas.
The point of the story was, of course, WHAT THE HELL WAS BUSH DOING SITTING THERE WITH "PUTEY PUTE" WITH THAT BIG SH!T EATING GRIN ON HIS FACE celebrating the heroic Stalinist memory?
Dictionary; punk 1)An aggressive and violent young criminal.
Still a little hungover? ;o)
The parties since the 1880s have done various dances around ideology--sometimes one is more Conservative, sometimes the other. From its inception in 1854, the Republican Party was clearly the more Liberal party, until the 1880s. Under McKinley, 1897 to 1901, it was the more Conservative Party--but that was fairly brief. Throughout the 20th Century, up until FDR, each Party had a strong Conservative wing and a strong Liberal wing.
With FDR, the Democrats became the Liberal Party; but the Conservative wing of the Democratic Party contained as many recognized Conservative leaders, as did the Conservative wing of the Republican Party, up until the Goldwater election of 1964, when Strom Thurmond started a major realignment, by joining the Republicans.
But the issues were still far from clear, until Reagan brought the Goldwater wing back into temporary control of the Republican Party in 1980. During the Reagan years, the actual division between the parties was as close as it had ever been to being actually on Conservative/Liberal lines, in over a Century.
But, sad to state, the lines are again becoming very, very blurred. It would not surprise me, as a student of history, to see the Democratic Party run someone clearly to the right of the Republicans in 2008--particularly, if those of us who still adhere to the concepts of the Founding Fathers, fail to regain control of the Republican Party at the grass-roots, over the next couple of years.
The hatred of Pat Buchanan, displayed in this thread, is another matter altogether, from these ideological dances. It was very obvious in 1999, that someone was determined to smear Pat, to completely marginalize him before the 2000 election. We can speculate on who was behind it, but it was too well coordinated to be merely an accident. Those who jump in and continue the smears at every opportunity, are not of course the conductors of that orchestrated effort, any more than the thugs who performed the looting on Crystal Night in Berlin, were the conductors there.
It is a very, very interesting psychological phenomenon, however, how those who feel they are guarding against something, so often become the very thing they think they are opposing. Pat Buchanan is no Nazi and no Nazi sympathizer. But those who rush to smear any and everything he writes, exhibit the same mindset as those smashing the shop windows of German Jewish merchants in 1938--and they like those shop window smashers, have been too well conditioned to have a clue as to how they are being used!
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Your comments are basically on the mark!
But, in my opinion, the reverse groupie rush to smear virtually everything Pat Buchanan--an excellent writer--writes, does not really stem from idolization of FDR. It stems from the same roots as the present Administration's very puzzling behavior--puzzling, that is, to the substantial Conservative element in the Republican base, since Barry Goldwater. Because it really got started in 1999, it is difficult to believe that it was not geared, at least in part, to someone's idea of how to ease the path for the then Texas Governor.
Now, I admit that this is speculation. But until something comes to light that does not fit that hypothesis--something which would require anyone who understands rational analysis to reject the idea--I will continue to see it as one of the factors.
But Pat, of course, has other enemies--ideological enemies--who may also be antagonistic to the Administration; so I would not put all of the blame or credit on Karl Rove. (Karl is too intellectually limited to have been able to accomplish it on his own.)
Regardless of the cause, it is very, very vicious. While I do not agree with Pat on a number of significant issues, his contribution to Conservative thought over the past decades has been significant, and he deserves our respect. That is why I frequently jump in and challenge the would be bullies. (It would be pretty funny, of course, if one of the Pat haters actually got into a debate with Pat. He would 'clean their clocks' so badly, they might never be able to tell time again.)
Cheers!
The REAL question is: is Patsy Buchanan worth it?
Hmm. You may have something there.
I never thought of it that way since I had thought of it as a slowly building storm beginning with the 1992 speech.
But you've you've certainly pointed to an intensifying point in the storm at about the advent of the globalist/neocon takeover of the party.
I could understand (however much it steamed me) when Sr. "moved up to the top chair". in '88. but the steamroller coronation of of Jr. just boggled my mind.
The Holocaust, e.g. mass genocide of Jews, only began in 1942, that is after we came in. Hitler's original plan was to kick the Jews out but FDR, the man who made this war possible, sent them back to die. Google S.S. St. Louis if you want to read more.
The Neos are doing it all over the place, not just to Buchanan. I'm perhaps to strong a reactionary but every time I hear them scream about party loyalty and the "Conservative Movement," (which is, by definition, a misnomer) all I can think about are the brownshirts. What makes it all the more surreal is the use of socialist rhetoric to support the party against opponents; who apparently are corrupt as much for being aloof from the "common man," as for their amoral philosophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.