Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Return of America first
Town Hall ^ | 4/18/06 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 04/18/2006 6:43:27 AM PDT by NotchJohnson

Friday's lead story in America's largest newspaper must have made for sober reading at AEI and the Council on Foreign Relations, the twin dorms that house the Wilsonian wings of our national parties.

Americans, it appears, have had a bellyful of interventionism and globaloney. Reporters Susan Page and David Jackson merit quoting at length:

"In a USA Today/Gallup Poll, nearly half of those surveyed said the United States 'should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own.' ...

"The leave-us-alone mood is apparent not only in the proportion of Americans, 64 percent, who want all or some of the U.S. troops in Iraq to come home now. It's also reflected in concern about illegal immigration -- eight of 10 said it was 'out of control' -- and in the furious public reaction to reports last month that a Dubai-owned firm was poised to take over cargo operations at ports in six states.

"Attitudes have soured toward trade, as well. Two-thirds said increased trade with other countries mostly hurts U.S. workers. By 50 percent-39 percent, respondents also said it mostly hurts American companies."

What do the polls mean? Bush and The Wall Street Journal may say America is trudging backward to the dark days of "isolationism and protectionism," of "Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley that gave us the Hoovervilles, Hitler and World War II."

But the truth is less dramatic.

What the polls are saying is that America, having tasted the fruits of Bush's foreign, immigration and trade policies, rejects them. Why? All three, of dubious conservative parentage, have failed.

Three in five Americans now believe the Iraq war -- whether we invaded to oust Saddam, strip him of WMD, turn Iraq into Vermont or establish our "benevolent global hegemony" -- was and is not worth the cost in blood and money.

They are saying that a NAFTA-GATT trade policy that results in $800 billion trade deficits and the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs -- one in every six in just five years -- should be jettisoned.

When they read of China growing at 10 percent a year, as factories close in the United States and GM and Ford, once the two greatest companies on earth, are lingering outside bankruptcy court, they think we can do better. And, we can.

They are not saying they dislike foreigners. But they are saying a government that cannot stop an invasion across our Mexican border that has left 11 million to 20 million intruders in our country, stomping around under foreign flags and demanding the benefits of U.S. citizens, is a failed regime that needs to be replaced. After all, what does it profit us if we save Anbar province but lose Arizona?

What the polls are saying is that neoconservatism has failed and we wish to be rid of it, that Davos Republicanism has failed and we wish to be rid of it, that the open-borders immigration policy of The Wall Street Journal is idiotic and we wish to be rid of it.

This is not only understandable, there would be something wrong with Americans if they did not seek to regurgitate the fruit of such failed policies. Yet, when one looks at the large Republican field of presidential hopefuls shaping up, not one has broken with, and all seem to stand behind, George W. Bush. None so more than John McCain.

And what do the Democrats offers? Taxes, censure, amnesty, Cynthia McKinney and a four-year rerun of "The Clintons."

In 1964, Barry Goldwater and his 110-proof conservatism were repudiated in the largest landslide since FDR's stomping of Alf Landon, who carried only Maine and Vermont.

But by 1968, Great Society liberalism had been tried and had transparently failed. The no-win war in Vietnam and the urban riots bespoke a failed philosophy and policy. Today in 2006, it is neoconservatism and Wall Street Journal Republicanism that have failed as badly as had Great Society liberalism by 1968.

Where Bush has remained faithful to a Reaganite philosophy, on taxes and judges, the country has remained with him. But where he listened to the globalists and the Vulcans, who altered the liturgy and diluted the dogma, he lost the country.

Fred Barnes has written darkly of a "paleo moment" in America.

But paleoconservatism is simply the faith of our fathers before we built that shelter for the neocon homeless booted out of their own house by the McGovernites, who appear, in retrospect, to have been more savvy than we thought.

What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.

Unfortunately, when the USA Today/Gallup poll shows Americans are looking for precisely such authentic conservatism, neither party is offering it. The children were right. The system doesn't work.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 1929; 3rdpartyfringe; 4fantisemitepat; 4farmchairgeneral; 7thcavalry; aei; assclown; bdsyndrome; bitterbeerface; bitterpaleos; bolsheviksforpat; buchanan; buchananfirst; conspiracykook; courage; crazyunclepat; dadgummedjews; derfuhrer; floppyshoes; foresight; gameoverman; garageband; gloomanddoom; groundhogday1783; hamascheerleader; headinthesand; hitlerfanboi; illinoisnazis; isolation; isolationism; knownothings; kook; lewcrockwell; libertpostal; munich; nutcase; onepercent; paleoinpanties; patbuchanan; patriot; peaceinourtime; phonebooth; poopypants; protocolsofzion; prozactime; racebaiting; tinfoilhat; williamjoycebrigade; wisdom; ziegheil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last
He loses me with the "Vulcans" comment. I wish it was as simple as we leave everyone alone and they will leave us alone.
1 posted on 04/18/2006 6:43:28 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson

How did that "America First" thing work out last time?


2 posted on 04/18/2006 6:43:54 AM PDT by dfwgator (Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
Unfortunately, when the USA Today/Gallup poll shows Americans are looking for precisely such authentic conservatism, neither party is offering it.

What we need is an "authentic" conservative to run for president, hand-in-hand with a Marxist-Leninist. Perhaps you should consider it, Mr. Buchanan? Again, I mean?

3 posted on 04/18/2006 6:46:40 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson

Uh Pat how many votes did you get?


4 posted on 04/18/2006 6:48:32 AM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
The irony is that "America First" was largely composed of anti-semitic Nazi Sympathiziers (Lindbergh, Joe Kennedy, etc.). These were also joined by Stalinist stooges (Dalton Trumbo, Pete Seeger, etc.) who wanted America out of WWII for just so long as Hitler had a non-agression pact with Stalin.

Those are the folks Pat Buchanan sides with.

5 posted on 04/18/2006 6:54:13 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Never question Bruce Dickinson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

So has Pat come full circle and finally looks good. It wasn't long ago that he was being called a Nazi sympathiser (isn't any conservative called that anyways?). It worries me when liberals like our guys (McCain).


6 posted on 04/18/2006 6:54:13 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

"America First"= ISOLATIONISM!

We just have to look at WWII, Pacific Theater, and going along to get along. WE DO NOT need another Pearl Harbor, and we NEVER need buchanan ever!!!

LLS


7 posted on 04/18/2006 6:56:56 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.

This is not isolationism, as the administration claims. I am all for a full assault on Saudi Arabia.

8 posted on 04/18/2006 6:58:12 AM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (Political troglodyte with a partisan axe to grind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

How many votes did you get? Does that invalidate your opinion?

"What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars."

Pat speaks some powerful truths here, which some people obviously don't want to hear.


9 posted on 04/18/2006 7:00:34 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson

10 posted on 04/18/2006 7:02:02 AM PDT by dfwgator (Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

Maybe if Pat didn't surround the occasional nugget of common sense with buckets full of bile and historical revisionism we might be able hear him.


11 posted on 04/18/2006 7:03:15 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Pat may speak a few truths, but until he gets off of the anti-semitism and radical ideology; he is relegated to a curiosity.
12 posted on 04/18/2006 7:04:40 AM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (Political troglodyte with a partisan axe to grind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Pat speaks some powerful truths here, which some people obviously don't want to hear.

Pat spouts them every night as an employee of the liberal media(MSNBC).

Again how many votes did he get?

13 posted on 04/18/2006 7:05:54 AM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; aculeus; Senator Bedfellow; Petronski; Constitution Day; Billthedrill; rdb3; ...
How did that "America First" thing work out last time?

With a look of bewilderment, Pat asks why destroy Hitler?

14 posted on 04/18/2006 7:06:02 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
It worries me when liberals like our guys (McCain). make that YOUR guy - McShame doesnt represent me in any way except he unfortunately breathes air. I've lost all respect for that phony. When he said to a Yuma crowd "we need those illegals because not one of you would pick lettuce like them and here's $50/hr to prove it" I said in my head "here's $50 - if you can fly a plane without getting shot down"
15 posted on 04/18/2006 7:07:08 AM PDT by Zrob (freedom without lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dane

More than you, I'll bet.


16 posted on 04/18/2006 7:07:12 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
America firsters were against entering WWII against fascism and Nazism.
Pat still wants to hide his head in the sand like an ostrich. This is a small world after all, and to defeat the islamofacists we cannot sit on our hands in North America.
17 posted on 04/18/2006 7:08:23 AM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
Guess this doesn't describe any of you...

What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.

The Vulcans comment is insignificant...He apparently loses you folks with comments like this one...

Buchanan wasn't allowed into the Presidential debates because they knew he would have walked away the winner...

18 posted on 04/18/2006 7:09:53 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
If history has taught me one thing, it's that we can ignore the rest of the world. I'm sure Iran will behave if we pull out of the Middle East.


19 posted on 04/18/2006 7:10:11 AM PDT by oldleft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
More than you, I'll bet.

Well of course, I don't have a six figure job at MSNBC spouting off constant anti-Bush tirades, pleasing his liberal bosses.

20 posted on 04/18/2006 7:11:04 AM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Where Bush has remained faithful to a Reaganite philosophy, on taxes and judges, the country has remained with him. But where he listened to the globalists and the Vulcans, who altered the liturgy and diluted the dogma, he lost the country

Oh BTW CC, Bush hasn't remained "faithful" to the Reagnite philosphy of blanket amnesty as Reagan did in 86(and Pat was part of Reagan's administration at the time).

I guess pat is saying President Bush should remain faithful and follow Reagan's path of complete amnesty.

21 posted on 04/18/2006 7:16:36 AM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever
Pat may speak a few truths, but until he gets off of the anti-semitism and radical ideology; he is relegated to a curiosity.

I've never seen or read anything that could label Buchanan as anti-semitic...He is not afraid to discuss Jewish people or Israel but I've never seen him attack Jews as a whole...

But radical ideology is what gave us the American Revolution and the Constitution...Radical ideology is what allowed George Patton to be as successful as he was...Radical ideology is what gave us the U.S. of A. and radical ideology is what we have to have to keep it...

22 posted on 04/18/2006 7:19:32 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Guess this doesn't describe any of you...

What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.

Those words all sound real pretty strung together, but in the context of the other 99% of what Pat Buchanon has to say, they are no different then anything you could have heard from Father Coughlin in 1936.

Buchanan wasn't allowed into the Presidential debates because they knew he would have walked away the winner...

Or because he couldn't even manage win over the majority of the members of the miniscule Reform Party.
23 posted on 04/18/2006 7:20:34 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
How did that "America First" thing work out last time?

Great, until FDR betrayed neutrality and embroiled us in the bloodiest war in world history. We've been on the offense ever since. Perhaps its time to rediscover G. Washington's advice on foreign affairs.
24 posted on 04/18/2006 7:20:42 AM PDT by UncleDick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.

Unfortunately, Iraq is our war. We can't bury our head in the sand.

Other than that, most of what he says is true. Bush has abandoned the idea of small government. Where he has stuck to reagan style conservatism he is rightly lauded, where he's gone all liberal on us he's rightly criticized.
25 posted on 04/18/2006 7:21:15 AM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
I believe what Pat is saying is that we need to observe our Borders, language, and culture, if we are to remain a nation. I believe I've heard that elsewhere as well.

I see the move to closing our borders as precisely that. We as a nation will retain our national heritage and culture, that which made us the best nation and culture on Earth in direct comparison to our third world broken culture to our south. Our English language is superior for developing ideas. It is exactly why in the past German was used in technology, but now English is used worldwide. It is because our language, English, is more precise and can more completely convey what the mind is thinking.

We as a nation have finally realized that we can't stay a nation if we are diluted by the ignorant, third worlders that the deconstructionists wish upon us.

Pat isn't always right, but he certainly makes us think.
26 posted on 04/18/2006 7:22:08 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick
Perhaps its time to rediscover G. Washington's advice on foreign affairs.

What was Washington's advice? Sign a treaty with France?

27 posted on 04/18/2006 7:22:11 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick
Great, until FDR betrayed neutrality and embroiled us in the bloodiest war in world history.

Yep, we should have just waited until Nazi troops were on the Mexican border.

28 posted on 04/18/2006 7:23:26 AM PDT by dfwgator (Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I've never seen or read anything that could label Buchanan as anti-semitic.

You're truly an Army of One, or your definition of anti-semitism doesn't apply to anything less then actually loading up the trains.
29 posted on 04/18/2006 7:23:48 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick

"Great, until FDR betrayed neutrality and embroiled us in the bloodiest war in world history"
________________________________________-

Hitler and Tojo did that...FDR had no choice...unless of course he wanted the axis powers to succeed as apparently was the case for the America firsters.


30 posted on 04/18/2006 7:24:09 AM PDT by fizziwig (Democrats: so far off the path, so incredibly vicious, so sadly pathetic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

Now now, Pat lost a relative in the Holocaust, his Uncle fell out of the guard tower.


31 posted on 04/18/2006 7:25:10 AM PDT by dfwgator (Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

The War on Terrorism is America's War, as was World War II, which he also has said was a mistake. Yes, he does lose people with basic intelligence and common sense with such comments.


32 posted on 04/18/2006 7:26:11 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
What was Washington's advice? Sign a treaty with France?

Actually, it was to not get embroiled into permanent alliances from which it would be hard to get out of. I don't think it precludes aggressively defending ourselves, however.

Pat is a bit nuts. His ideas of not going after problems while they're small are insane.

However, he's absolutely right about the tearing down of our culture and the export of our heavy industry. Something needs to be done.
33 posted on 04/18/2006 7:27:03 AM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick
Perhaps its time to rediscover G. Washington's advice on foreign affairs.

Perhaps it's time take into account about two hundred years' worth of advances in military technology and the rise of totalitarian ideologies. And the inconvenient fact that we no longer can hide ourselves behind the British Navy.
34 posted on 04/18/2006 7:27:44 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick
Great, until FDR betrayed neutrality and embroiled us in the bloodiest war in world history.

No, that was a guy named Hitler that started all of that. Germany declared war against the United States before we got involved over there.

35 posted on 04/18/2006 7:29:54 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

Get off the sly "traitor" insults, already.

Or perhaps you should apply them to the US Founding Fathers - they also warned their country against "entangling alliances". Do you consider THEM traitors too?


36 posted on 04/18/2006 7:31:01 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
Get off the sly "traitor" insults, already.

Actually, he was responding to a post calling FDR a traitor. Pot. Kettle. Any bells going off yet?

Or perhaps you should apply them to the US Founding Fathers - they also warned their country against "entangling alliances". Do you consider THEM traitors too?

Wonderful advice in a world without aircraft, nuclear weapons, ballistic misiles, chemical and biological weapons, totalitarian ideologies, etc, etc, etc.

You think that two hundred years of history might not be enough cause to maybe reconsider that advice?

Do you think that standing up NATO was a bad idea? If so, why?
37 posted on 04/18/2006 7:40:04 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

NATO was a purely defensive organization. It didn't go around attacking countries.


39 posted on 04/18/2006 7:49:46 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

And FDR was a near-traitor, they way he sold out Eastern Europe at Tehran in 1943.


40 posted on 04/18/2006 7:51:34 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NotchJohnson
What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.

I say I have to agree with everything written here and I would think most conservatives would too. That said, Iraq is a war that is our war. Afghanistan was our war and any other Middle East country we need to stomp is our war. This war against the Islamic terrorists is our war and really only our war. Its nice to have allies to help but if they all left we would still need to be fighting this war, and Iraq is our business.

We have interests in the Middle East, mainly due to oil but thats a big friggin interest and it must be protected, hence Gulf War 1.

We still have to be loyal friends, but not everyone can be our friend. England Australia Italy and certain eastern bloc nations along with Israel are friends worth defending.

41 posted on 04/18/2006 7:56:00 AM PDT by normy (Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
NATO was a purely defensive organization. It didn't go around attacking countries.

What entangling alliance did we enter that went around attacking countries?
42 posted on 04/18/2006 8:00:26 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Who you trying to kid??? Our borders are wide open to terrorists...We're giving hundreds of millions to terrorists in Israel...What war on terrorism???

That is not a response to what I wrote. I said the War on Terrorism is America's War. Do you agree or disagree?

43 posted on 04/18/2006 8:03:01 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative; normy

There are obviously plenty Rhinos in our ranks. They usually are the ones that see "put America first" as "to h_ll with the rest of the world." Hmm come to think of it "to h_ll with Iran" sounds good to me! Oh, but wait, if we say "put America first" that means "damn Australia, England, Italy and Israel" as well. Gosh, we better not put America first lest the whole world sets out forces to invade America! Come on people.

Please tell me honestly how many of you like the United Nations as a whole or even some members of NATO?

I guess you folks that don't like what Pat said will not like this one either...
"We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." -- Theodore Roosevelt 1907 speaking about immigrants


44 posted on 04/18/2006 8:05:47 AM PDT by libsheartharikari (libs heart the U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
And FDR was a near-traitor, they way he sold out Eastern Europe at Tehran in 1943

How many divisions did the U.S. have on the mainland of Europe in 1943? Who was about to have about four hundred divisions roll over Eastern Europe? Who was allied with Romainia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Slovakia?

Would you care to revise and extend your remarks?
45 posted on 04/18/2006 8:11:17 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

I'm talking about a new irresponsible attitude among certain persons with WH influence, which suggests that (a) war can solve every problem without creating new ones, and (b) these wars will be quick and painless.

Let's be honest, all of us who supported the Iraq Invasion - that's most here on FR, plus most in the White House - were led down the garden path a bit in thinking that the Iraqi people would hail the troops as liberators, and that forces would be out of Iraq in 2-3 years. It's obvious to all now that US troops will probably have to stay in Iraq for the next 50 years, to keep the peace there.

We're all re-learning the lessons that the old British commanders had to learn: the Middle East is an endless minefield - very easy to get into, a lot harder to get out of.


46 posted on 04/18/2006 8:23:23 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

You're right - a traitor is someone who betrays his own country.

FDR merely condemned the countries of Eastern Europe to slavery and oppression, so I can't properly call him a traitor.

He was a creep.


47 posted on 04/18/2006 8:28:56 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
That is not a response to what I wrote. I said the War on Terrorism is America's War. Do you agree or disagree?

I don't think I could answer that to your satisfaction...A war on terrorism should be every country's war...But there is no war on terrorism...Granted, we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan...We are nation building...

We are trying to build muzlim democracies...The War on Terrorism is something our gov't and mass media have come up with...

We can't have a war on terrorism and support the same terrorists at the same time...

48 posted on 04/18/2006 8:29:12 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
And as we all know, Pat was looking at the war in hindsight...

And still comes off far worse then Churchill or Roosevelt who didn't have the benefit of fifty years of hindsight.

We had rich Americans and corporations supporting Hitler monetarily which resulted in millions of dead Americans

Oh for Pete's sake, read a history book. We lost 405,000 American servicemembers from all causes in all theaters during WW2. Now, if you want to argue that IBM's foreign operation in Germany made it possible for the Nazis to accurately tabulate and manage the transport of the millions of Jews and other "undesirables" that died in the death camps, ok, I'll listen to that argument. I'd be struck a bit by the irony though, given the author whose article we are here debating.

...Half of Europe (including Hitler allies Romainia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Slovakia)was given to Russia (20-40 million casualties), which was as bad or worse than Hitler

By the way, Russia actually had the four hundred divisions in the field necessary to conquer it from Germany. Perhaps such inconvenient facts should be ignored.

...France, Italy and a number of others turned out to be Socialist countries...

that are not nearly as bad as or worse than Hitler.
49 posted on 04/18/2006 8:30:27 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative
FDR merely condemned the countries of Eastern Europe to slavery and oppression, so I can't properly call him a traitor.

Please, this is almost so pathetic it's funny.

FDR should have done precisely what to save those poor noble willing accomplices of Hitler? What means did he have available other then wishful thinking that it would be the Soviet Union that would bear most of the cost of shoving the Germans back into Germany?

And paleoconservatives call us naive idealists.
50 posted on 04/18/2006 8:38:22 AM PDT by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson