Skip to comments.Time for an “Agonizing Reappraisal”-Across the arc of crisis, US foreign policy is in disarray
Posted on 07/07/2006 7:52:16 AM PDT by SJackson
click here to read article
Rebuttal--The final solution to the Jewish state
Is this a new column? I swear I've read this 879,936,521,230,497 times!
There was a book out this year by a black author I heard interviewed that basically says our foreign policy does not work due to white racism.
We cannot do what we know is right becuase we will be accused of being white racists and not allowing other peoples views and position take control.
I'll look for the interview I believe it was on Hugh Hewett's show.
Very nice: Pat and John and John and Russ and Al and Hillary, all in the same breath, sniping at the war effort. I would not enjoy that association; but apparently, Pat doesn't mind at all.
Israel moves inexorably to wall off the desired slices of the West Bank, annex Jerusalem and its suburbs, retain military control of the Jordan Valley, and get an America awash in debt to pick up the tab for a reported $10 billion.
...and, what would a hit-piece by Pat be without a swipe at Israel? Ho-freakin'-hum.
Pat can kiss my rump.
The ravings of the irrelevant.
Oh boy Pat, if only we had elected you president, terrorists the world over would have been appeased.
We would have stopped funding Israel, ignored the Taliban, left Iraq for Uday and Qusay, not bothered to put a halt to nuclear materials being shipped to Libya, and sat down for face to face meetings with Iran.
The world would be so much safer.
I almost read this article before seeing it was by Pat. Since I've already got a splitting headache this morning I just decided to pass.
I know Pat is an isolationist but his rantings the last few years confound me. He's not running for anything, why does he have to be such contrarian?
He sounds like a democrat.
someone has taken the time to deconstruct Pat's anti-Israeli rantings nicely.
Oh, him again.
That told me that Pat Buchanan is not very bright. The difference between Hitlers Germany and the Soviet Union was Hitlers goal of world domination had to be acccomplished during Hitlers life time. It was Hitler's Germany not Germany's Hitler. On the other hand it was the Soviet Union's Stalin not Stalin's Soviet Union. Hitler was a true dictator. On the other hand, the Soviet Union was a nation build on ideology.. just as the USA is nation built on ideology. Neither the USA Or the Soviet Union needed to win their conflict in one man's life time. Hitler did.
Thus Stalin's death did not end the cold war. The Soviet Union under a long list of Stalins successors continued to persue the goal of world domination.
The Soviet Union believed that communism would bury caplitalism. It would not take a world war.. It would just take time for their ideology to prevail. Since we knew capitalism would defeat Communism mutual containment was adopted by both sides... and Capitalism won.
Hitler needed to accomplish world domination in his own life time. That meant war was Hitler's only option with any chance of success.
If we had followed the stupid advice of a very dumb Buchanan, Hitler would have waited to attack us until he was assured he had the force to win. We would have tried to contain Hitler as Hitler prepared for war. Once prepared Hitler would have attacked us. It would have been WW II on Hitlers time table not ours. We would have lost. On our time table we barely won.
What defeated Hitler was Churchill's realization that the longer we tried to negotiate and contain Hitler the better chance Hitler had of winning a war started when Hitler wanted to start it. If England had waited until HItler attacked England.. England would have been lost.
After the appeasers.. (another way of saying containment advocates) were removed from power Churchill confronted Hitler on the battle field. As history proved there was not a second to spare.
Buchanan only knows which strategies have worked in the past. He has no clue of why different strategies are required in different situations. He is and was unable to discern the difference.
Someone once said..
Well I guess, since obvious to Buchanan that it is hopeless, the answer is what would France do?
Buchannan is a moron
The world would be safer if the US weren't such an aggressive, expansionist, colonizing nation.
As to the poor put upon Iranians, consider the record.
In the last 27 years the United States
-- launched air strikes on Libya
-- invaded Grenada
--put Marines in Lebanon
--run air strikes in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains
-- launched Desert Storm
--put troops into Somalia
-- fired cruise missiles into Sudan
--intervened in Bosnia
--conducted bombing strikes on Iraq
--launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia
--put troops into Kosovo
--moved NATO into Poland
--established U.S. bases in former provinces of Russia's
--invaded Afghanistan and Iraq
And in this same quarter century Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an 8-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression.
There's an audience out there. Particularly one issue at a time.
Pat writes well and some of what he says is true or likely to happen.
We however are not headed toward one world government as you suggest. Soon the US will throw the UN out of America and then QUIT the UN. We will not submit to their view of the world.
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.