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

Skip to comments.

The Noninterventionists Told You So
The New American ^ | 18 June 2014 | Sheldon Richman

Posted on 06/18/2014 7:15:10 PM PDT by VitacoreVision

Contrary to popular belief, there is no satisfaction in being able to say, “I told you so.” This is especially so with Iraq, where recent events are enough to sicken one’s stomach. Yet it still must be said: those who opposed the George W. Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq in March 2003 — not to mention his father’s war on Iraq in 1991 and the sanctions enforced through the administration of Bill Clinton — were right.

The noninterventionists predicted a violent unraveling of the country, and that’s what we’re witnessing. They agreed with Amr Moussa, chairman of the Arab League, who warned in September 2002 that the invasion would “open the gates of hell.” There was no ISIS or al-Qaeda in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq before the U.S. invasion.

Once again, the establishment news media have ill-served the American public. In the buildup to the 2003 bipartisan war on Iraq — which was justified through lies about weapons of mass destruction and complicity in the 9/11 attacks — little time and ink were devoted to the principled opponents of intervention.

Maybe war builds circulation, ratings, and advertising revenues. Or maybe corporate news outlets fear losing access to high-ranking government officials. Whatever the explanation, far more media resources went toward hyping the illegal aggressive war than to the case against it.

No one can grasp the complexity of one’s own society, we noninterventionists said, much less a society with Iraq’s unique religious, sectarian, and political culture and history. Intervention grows out of hubris. Nonintervention accepts the limits of any ruling cadre’s knowledge. The war planners had no clue how to reform Iraqi society. But there was one thing they did know: they would not suffer the consequences of their arrogance.

You’d think that with the noninterventionists proven right, the media would learn from their folly and turn to them to analyze the current turmoil in Iraq. But you’d be mistaken.

With few exceptions, the go-to “authorities” are the same people who got it wrong — not all of them neoconservatives, because interventionists come in different stripes. The discussion today is almost exclusively over how the Obama administration should intervene in Iraq, not if it should intervene. Even Paul Wolfowitz, one of the wizards of the original invasion, gets face time on major networks. He was part of the crowd which said that American invaders would be greeted with rose petals, that regime change in Iraq would spread liberal democracy throughout the Middle East, and that even peace between the Israelis and Palestinians would take place.

These “authorities” were wrong about everything — assuming they believed their own words — but that seems not to matter.

They have their own story, of course. It’s not the 2003 invasion that has brought Iraq to disintegration, they say. It is Barack Obama’s failure to leave U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011. This argument doesn’t work.

First, Obama (wrongly) asked Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to allow troops to remain beyond the deadline negotiated by Bush, but al-Maliki insisted that U.S. personnel who commit crimes be subject to Iraqi law, a reasonable demand. Obama would not accept that.

Second, why should we believe the advocates of the original invasion when they say a residual U.S. force could have prevented the offensive now conducted by ISIS, aka the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Levant)? It’s far more likely that if American troops were in Iraq today, they would be killing and dying.

Al-Maliki is everyone’s favorite scapegoat now, and the ruler known as the Shi’ite Saddam certainly is a villain. He has arrested respected Sunni figures and ordered troops to shoot peaceful Sunni demonstrators. But recriminations against the Sunnis, who were identified with Saddam’s secular Ba’athist party, started with the American administration of Iraq.

U.S. intervention now would be perceived as taking the Shi’ite side in the Iraqi sectarian war. (Obama is intervening, though on the opposite side, in Syria, which helped build ISIS.) The conflict is complicated — not all Sunnis and Shiites want sectarian violence — but that’s all the more reason to think that neither American troops nor diplomats can repair Iraq. The people themselves will have to work things out. As for terrorism, it is U.S. intervention that makes Americans targets.

Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: horsehockey; paultard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 06/18/2014 7:15:10 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

The treasonous DemonRATS were (and are) the enemy within, derailing the winning strategy of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld team. Jim Robinson, the owner of this site, supports the Bush Doctrine and the unraveling of Iraq shows, more than ever, that President George Bush was right.


2 posted on 06/18/2014 7:21:43 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

The US can no longer send troops anywhere. We are a nation divided and can never fight a war the proper way again. The other side would say we would if we were directly attacked by another nation. The sad part is we probably will be attacked at some point as a result of the mess this ass of a president and his party is creating in the world and in our military.


3 posted on 06/18/2014 7:23:12 PM PDT by Phillyred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision
How could anyone have predicted that a man of historic incompetence would be in the White House for eight years ?
Is there any doubt that it would have been much worse if we hadn't removed Sadam's yellow cake and chemical weapons?
4 posted on 06/18/2014 7:32:07 PM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision; Admin Moderator
This Sheldon Richman traitor has these logos on his webpage:

I am pinging the mod to request that this thread be deleted. He's a liberal surrender monkey much like Ron Paul.

5 posted on 06/18/2014 7:32:42 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: VitacoreVision

I wonder how the Arab Spring would have treated Sadaam. Let’s just pretend that if the US hadn’t intervened , even in Kuwait in 1991, that everything would have just stayed peachy over there.


7 posted on 06/18/2014 7:33:31 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex
I was and remain a staunch non-interventionist. PJB was always my guy. PJB railed against the patent idiocy of the invasion of Iraq. I hate the Neocon GOP with an abiding fury.

Only a drooling idiot ever believed that Islam is somehow compatible with democracy. Remember that Dubya yammered on and on and on about how Islam is a "religion of peace."

Only a drooling idiot could have said that.

And Dubya said it many times.

So, let's try to draft up a syllogism, shall we?

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Likewise, all who say that Islam is a "religion of peace" and is somehow compatible with democracy are blithering idiots. George W. Bush said many times that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that it is completely compatible with democracy. Therefore, George W. Bush is a blithering idiot.

QED.

Deal with it, Neocons. You were wrong. You created one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in our history. We told you so, but you were too arrogant (as blithering idiots always are) to ever even give it a second thought.

All warmongering Neocons owe us Buchananite conservatives a thoroughly groveling apology.

I can only hope that from here on out we as a nation will finally remember George Washington's admonition about foreign entanglements, turn our backs on all these imperial designs once and for all, retreat to Fortress America and raise the bloody drawbridge and leave it up until Kingdom Come.

8 posted on 06/18/2014 7:45:08 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

What a load of crap. The New American must be what America will be when Obama has transformed it.


9 posted on 06/18/2014 7:45:09 PM PDT by Defiant (Obama is not the anti-Christ. He is Satan's John the Baptist, preparing the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

Bush’s problem wasn’t that he did it. It was that he didn’t defend it, and he didn’t use it as a springboard to destabilize Iran.


10 posted on 06/18/2014 7:45:58 PM PDT by Defiant (Obama is not the anti-Christ. He is Satan's John the Baptist, preparing the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

We were imposing a no-fly zone when we attacked Iraq in 2003. There is no way to know what Saddam would have done if we did not pursue regime change. I fully supported the invasion.

But. America needs to deal with today’s reality. Obama is incompetent. We lost vital ongoing intelligence in Iraq because of the 2011 withdrawal. Our options today are limited.

My personal view is we either unleash the full force of our military with almost unlimited rules of engagement, or stand down and let the Arabs kill each other and let Muhammad sort things out.


11 posted on 06/18/2014 7:46:33 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

The fact of the matter is that no one can see into the future. We don’t know yet how this is going to all turn out. One thing I do know.....the Obama Administration will bungle it all up.


12 posted on 06/18/2014 7:51:08 PM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus; trisham; babble-on
All warmongering Neocons owe us Buchananite conservatives a thoroughly groveling apology.

Patrick J. Buchanan is not well liked by the Conservative stalwarts of Free Republic. I humbly advise you to tread very lightly here (and sniff the air for ozone) when supporting any viscious anti-Semite, especially #6 on the list.

13 posted on 06/18/2014 7:53:31 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Gluteus Maximus

Right now, the neocons (and too many FReepers) are engaged in the same debate George Washington’s doctors had after he died:

“It all would be OK now if we’d just bled him a little more!!!”

The alternative cannot be contemplated.


15 posted on 06/18/2014 7:53:52 PM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (Peace On Earth! Purity of Essence! McCain/Ripper 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
Bush’s problem wasn’t that he did it. It was that he didn’t defend it, and he didn’t use it as a springboard to destabilize Iran.

I mean no disrespect, but that's obviously wrong. To say that means that you have no idea what Islam is. Neither did Bush, by the way. He famously didn't know the difference between the Sunni and Shia branches of his Religion of Peace.

Here's the problem. Bush clearly did not understand the situation there AT ALL. He had no idea what he was dealing with in Islam. He assumed that Sunnis and Shias all had inner Texans screaming to get out.

Surely you agree with that, right?

So if Bush went into Iraq having absolutely no idea what the situation really was, how can you not say that the project was FUBAR from the get-go?

Invading Iraq was obviously a blunder. There was never any hope of success in the sense of making Iraq a solid democracy that we be our reliable ally in the Middle East. That's what the moronic Neocons wanted. Like I said, only a fool could ever have believed that.

16 posted on 06/18/2014 7:54:13 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

Fair. But we will never know what events would unfold if we did not invade Iraq. Perhaps Saddam would have unleashed hell on the region and/or world. Perhaps not.

So we need to deal with today’s reality.


17 posted on 06/18/2014 7:54:44 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision
This is a massive Barack turd. The noninterventionists predicted a violent unraveling of the country..., like Vietnam, they actively participated in unraveling it.
18 posted on 06/18/2014 7:54:49 PM PDT by depressed in 06 (America conceived in liberty, dies in slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Everyone loves to say, “I told you so.” But when a difficult decision needs to be made, you cannot find them for some reason.


19 posted on 06/18/2014 7:57:30 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VitacoreVision

“....not to mention his father’s war on Iraq in 1991 and the sanctions enforced through the administration of Bill Clinton — were right.”

So, we should have let Hussein keep Kuwait, ignoring our treaty with Kuwait? And then we should not have sanction Hussein’s regime for starting the war in the first place?

Ah-huh. Does this stupid lefty not remember than 34 nations (including much of the Islamic world and several key Iraqi allies, like France), and a unanimous vote by the UN Security Council (lefties love the UN, after all) all said that driving Hussein out of Kuwait was the RIGHT thing to do?


20 posted on 06/18/2014 8:01:12 PM PDT by DemforBush (A repo man is always intense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
So we need to deal with today’s reality.

I graciously grant you that.

What do we do now?

Simple. Let them kill each other. ISIS is a group that arose in the Sunni-Shiite split in Syria. They're not about "Death to America" nearly as much as they're all about "Death to Shiites."

It's really made to order for us. Let the Sunnis fight the Shias and bleed each other dry. We can clean up selling weapons and materiel to both sides. We might have to do a few surgical strikes here and there to keep the war going for a couple of decades until Islam is spent as a force, at least for a very long time.

If they attack us, kill them all. Otherwise, make as much money as possible.

It's really a no-brainer, once one gets beyond the whole Cowboy in White Hat paradigm.

21 posted on 06/18/2014 8:01:58 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex
He perpetuates these lies...

war on Iraq — which was justified through lies about weapons of mass destruction and complicity in the 9/11 attacks

the illegal aggressive war

My recollection is that it was justified by the continual
and aggressive breaking of the ceasefire conditions by Saddam.

He does not give support for his claim that it was an 'illegal' war
and is only repeating propagandist drivel.

22 posted on 06/18/2014 8:02:02 PM PDT by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

Kinda. But a Sunni - Shia war is really a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. That can turn bad quick.


23 posted on 06/18/2014 8:07:00 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus
I disagree. I was a faithful reader of Michael Ledeen all through that period, and each of his columns ended with "faster". We probably didn't want to go into Iran, it would be too costly and would unite the people against us. be there were a lot of options available when we were a pissed off country that just kicked the crap out of Saddam and were sitting on the Mullahs' doorstep. The people of that region are tired of the Mullah's and were ripe to get rid of them, with just a bit of guidance. But we exhibited no interest in anything in Iran, and eventually, the Mullahs crawled back out of their holes and starting working on nukes again.

I am not sure what you mean by "inner Texans" but if you are criticizing nation building, I have been an opponent of that from the beginning. You can't build a democratic society in a country like Iraq. We should have put a strong man in control, one whose goal wasn't to nuke the US, and then got the hell out.

I don't buy that Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia. Where do you get that from? Maybe not in 2001, but in 2003, he most definitely did.

We will have to disagree on Iraq, though. Saddam did have WMDs, hate to break it to you, and he would have eventually found a way to make a devastating attack on the US. He knew about 9/11 in advance, allowed jihadis to train in their little terror facility, and if he wasn't working on nukes in 2003, he would have resumed soon enough. One does not give up one that, especially when one is next door to Iran and they are developing nukes.

Iraq was a good followup to Afghanistan, poorly executed, and without a vision of what to do after.

24 posted on 06/18/2014 8:07:46 PM PDT by Defiant (Obama is not the anti-Christ. He is Satan's John the Baptist, preparing the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

It kills me that Saddam is now looked at as someone with some sense of stability. The guy only had a 10 year war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, and gassed the Kurds, not to mention all the torture that went on there and mass graves. Some stability!

If anything, one could say nothing has changed. But really, can you argue that it’s actually worse?


25 posted on 06/18/2014 8:12:29 PM PDT by CommieCutter ("For an idea to be too simplistic, it must first be proven wrong" --Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

ping


26 posted on 06/18/2014 8:14:13 PM PDT by Pelham (California, what happens when you won't deport illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
It could turn bad on Iran and Saudi and their neighbors. Not on us.

Our ONLY interest there is oil.

So, build Keystone, drill baby drill, frack the bejessus out of the Marcellus, rape the Alaskan North Slope, open up the Santa Barbara Coast, etc. Suddenly, Saudi Arabia disappearing in a radioactive flash doesn't seem so bad.

Do you see?

27 posted on 06/18/2014 8:16:36 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I was for taking out Saddam, and continue to believe it was the right next step, after Afghanistan. I don't say I told you so about that. I say, and said at the time, that Iraq had to be part of a broader strategy to go after Islam (not militant or extreme Islam, but Islam, for it is Islam itself that is the problem). What became clear in the months after Iraq was conquered was that there was no strategic vision for dealing with Islam. That would require dealing with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and would require calling Islam what it is, a plague on humanity. It needed to be attacked as an ideology the way America was anti-communist all those decades (until Obama). No one was concerned that we would hurt communist's feelings. But all we got from Bush on Islam was the "religion of peace" crap.

It required some ass kicking, some economic coercion, some persuasion of the intellectual kind, a decades long effort similar to the cold war to isolate the Muslims and bring them out of the middle ages. No one in the administration, with the possible exception of Rumsfeld, had that kind of perspective.

And we needed a strategic vision for dealing with the home front. Newt had a great article on that around 2005 or so. We needed someone who would call out the traitors, explain the course of action, give the press a hard time when it tried to propagandize the American people, and use the bully pulpit. Bush acted as if convincing people and defending his actions was beneath him. He let himself be dragged down lower and lower in the public's eyes until it became possible that people would actually look at a Muslim commie traitor like Obama and say "give him a try".

28 posted on 06/18/2014 8:18:33 PM PDT by Defiant (Obama is not the anti-Christ. He is Satan's John the Baptist, preparing the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I’m just curious what the “I told you so” crowd would have done after 9-11, more specifically the Democrats.

I seem to remember the “I told you so” Democrats that I know vociferously pounding the notion we should have finished off Saddam Hussien the first time, and blah blah. Of course that changed to whatever the media was spoon feeding them that week.

The next tactic on the plate was to say that Bush/Cheney planted WMD. I heard that from a lot of Dems too, probably got that s#$% from NPR that week.


29 posted on 06/18/2014 8:21:58 PM PDT by CommieCutter ("For an idea to be too simplistic, it must first be proven wrong" --Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
What became clear in the months after Iraq was conquered was that there was no strategic vision for dealing with Islam. That would require dealing with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and would require calling Islam what it is, a plague on humanity.

I agree with that. In all reality the entire region needed to be dealt with but it's easy for me to say from the keyboard...

30 posted on 06/18/2014 8:23:54 PM PDT by CommieCutter ("For an idea to be too simplistic, it must first be proven wrong" --Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
The people of that region are tired of the Mullah's and were ripe to get rid of them, with just a bit of guidance.

That is the delusion. Right there.

You could only say that if you have no real grasp on what Islam is. The Mullahs or some form of Islamic tyranny is inevitable there. Islam has controlled the area for 1500 years. Islam is like the Borg on Star Trek. Once you're in that world, there's no coming out.

There are no competing systems of thought allowed in the Middle East. Haven't been for 15 centuries. And you suppose that the American Cowboy in the White Hat - let's call him "Sugar Foot" just for argument's sake - is going to set all that right in a few years?

To say that is to overestimate our power on a scale rivaled only by the Hot Air Cult, who seriously think that mankind is important enough to change the Earth's climate. The sun, an unimaginably large ball of nuclear plasma that is the source of all of our energy? Not a big deal to them, apparently. Yuppies driving around in SUVs? Very, very big deal.

So too interventionists think that we can ride into town like Sugar Foot and change the thinking of a billion-plus people ingrained over 15 centuries in a few years.

Baseball, Coca-Cola, rock 'n roll! It's gotta work!

Sugar Foot, Sugar Foot, never underestimate him, Sugar Foot . . .

Good heavens, man. The utter lack of perspective is nothing short of astonishing.

31 posted on 06/18/2014 8:25:57 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

We’re not far apart. Most of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi and Iran is going nuclear. So I don’t think this is a local Mideast issue. My goal is to destroy all enemies of America, or let them destroy themself.


32 posted on 06/18/2014 8:29:22 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex

I have always loved Pat and I love him more all the time —an amazing historian, orator, and fervent Patriot.

I always marvel that he has lived in DC his whole life, yet retains all his wholesome American-ness.

Pat Buchanan..!


33 posted on 06/18/2014 8:33:54 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Exactly. If the enemy is shelling its own positions the last thing you do is try to stop them. Sit back. Microwave up some nachos. Enjoy the unfolding.


34 posted on 06/18/2014 8:37:24 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: gaijin
I have always loved Pat and I love him more all the time —an amazing historian, orator, and fervent Patriot.

What are your thoughts about this 2004 FR thread, Pat Buchanan: The New Michael Moore? The very best of the FReepers don't seem to share your admiration of Pat Buchanan.

The keywords on that thread are quite telling: andyrooneylite; bushbasher; crankyoldman; hasbeen; judas; oldnutcake; patbuchanan; rightwentwrong;

35 posted on 06/18/2014 8:41:03 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex; Gluteus Maximus

That’s a particularly vile article that you referenced. Care to explain how it was that Ronald Reagan selected this ‘vicious anti-Semite’ as his White House Communications Director? But then I recall how some of the Buchanan haters also smeared Ronald Reagan. Letters to Commentary magazine after his Bitburg trip were full of hate for Reagan.

The original hit piece on Buchanan was written for Commentary by Joshua Muravchik, former president of the Young People’s Socialist League, and his smear has been treated as gospel ever since. I can understand its appeal to leftists but I figured conservatives would be acute enough to see through its distortions. Not so.

When the Israelis bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in June 1981 the Reagan administration condemned the attack. Buchanan, who held the conservative seat on Crossfire, supported Israel. Funny how Buchanan haters rarely mention facts that don’t fit their character assassination.


36 posted on 06/18/2014 8:44:55 PM PDT by Pelham (California, what happens when you won't deport illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

I’m a major fan of Buchanan. You must mean the other guy.


37 posted on 06/18/2014 8:47:28 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
In another thread dealing with Pat Buchanan, Jim Robinson, the Patriot who founded Free Republic stated and, in particular, I think the bold text addresses your point regarding Buchanan and President Reagan:

No, I don't agree with Pat Buchanan. I don't see a death of Western Civilization now or anytime in our future. To the contrary, I see an awakening of the rest of the world. More and more nations and societies are becoming free or freer. The former USSR, Afghanistan and Iraq are just recent examples of expanding freedom. With expanding freedom comes freedom of speech and freedom of religion and that will eventually bring a revival of spirituality.

I think Pat has forgotten the lessons of Ronald Reagan. Ignore the gloom and doomers, naysayers, and messengers from the darkside. Keep the light of freedom shining brightly for all to see. Welcome the former subjects of tyranny to the brave new world of freedom and help them find their way. Their struggles will be many. Never, ever surrender to the enemies of freedom. Do not throw up additional barriers to people yearning to be free. Their burdens are already much too heavy to bear. Do not preach the message of doom. Preach the message of light. On this Independence Day, remember the shining optimism of Ronald Reagan and his visions of freedom for all.

38 posted on 06/18/2014 8:52:47 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex

Ultimately, the Lord is going to have to be called into the picture to make it so. Politicians can’t do this, not even a second incarnation of Ronald Reagan could. Evangelists and responsive audiences must.


39 posted on 06/18/2014 8:55:33 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

” Perhaps Saddam would have unleashed hell on the region and/or world. Perhaps not.”

The world? The region? Please, Saddam couldn’t even defeat Iran. His only conquest was tiny Kuwait.

To his north was Turkey which would have chewed up Iraq for drill. To his west was Syria, a Baathist ally, and Jordan which Iraq might have been able to roll. South is Saudi Arabia but that meant taking on the United States. The only other border country was Kuwait.

Iraq didn’t have a blue water navy, a strategic air force or ballistic missiles. Even if they had managed to get a nuclear bomb they couldn’t have delivered it very far. Iraq was at most a problem for its smaller neighbors, and Saddam was more of an admirer of Joe Stalin than of Mohammed.


40 posted on 06/18/2014 9:05:33 PM PDT by Pelham (California, what happens when you won't deport illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gluteus Maximus

I know, I just thought you’d be interested in the discussion.


41 posted on 06/18/2014 9:06:52 PM PDT by Pelham (California, what happens when you won't deport illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
My goal is to destroy all enemies of America, or let them destroy themselves...

America's enemies aren't primitive people as far away as they could possibly be. Nobody believes the "They hate us for our freedom!" dreck anymore.

America's enemies are molesting you @ the airport. They are taking your tax dollars. They are spying on you and shooting your house pet.

42 posted on 06/18/2014 9:16:08 PM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (Peace On Earth! Purity of Essence! McCain/Ripper 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex

My point is that Ronald Reagan knew Pat Buchanan well, and those of you who resort to charging Buchanan with being an anti-Semite need to explain how it was that Reagan didn’t share your amazing insight.

The Buchanan bashers at Commentary who got this all going didn’t like Reagan any better than they did Buchanan, and called Reagan an anti-Semite for going to Bitburg. Do you agree with that as well?

Jim Robinson’s comments don’t help your position at all, as JR is not charging Buchanan with being an anti-Semite, which you do. What JR objects to is Pat’s prediction that the West is in decline, a gloomy view shared by James Burnham, one of National Review’s founding writers and a man whom President Reagan awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983.


43 posted on 06/18/2014 9:21:03 PM PDT by Pelham (California, what happens when you won't deport illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Jim Robinson’s comments don’t help your position at all, as JR is not charging Buchanan with being an anti-Semite, which you do.

My point is quoting the boss is that Pat Buchanan lost his way. During the time he was working for President Ronald Reagan, I believe that he (PJB) was a good man. As Ronaldus Maximus's influence over Buchanan waned, he became unhinged. William F. Buckley stated:

I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament.

44 posted on 06/18/2014 9:35:43 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; Star Traveler
By the way, I actually wrote something rather positive about Pat Buchanan here on Free Republic not too long ago. I was corrected by FReeper stalwart, Star Traveler who has a sign up date of 1999-12-17 stating:

Pat Buchanan is a closet ANTI-SEMITE and I wouldn’t invite him into my city much less my neighborhood or home! Now, Pat Buchanan has long been an anti-Semite. His repulsive publication, The American Conservative, is an isolationist tract featuring the writings of magazine co-founder and open Jew-hater Taki Theodoracopulos, who calls himself a “soi-disant antisemite.” He once characterized Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld as a “very homely, simian-looking Jew who couldn’t punch his way out of a nursery,” and remarked that the United States was in danger of becoming “Israel-occupied territory,” meaning that it would be controlled by “those nice guys who attack rock-throwing youth with armour-piercing missiles.” Said Theodoracopulos, “the way to Uncle Sam’s heart runs through Tel Aviv and Israeli-occupied territory.”

When facts such as those are marshaled by a FReeper with such gravitas, I had to readjust my once favorable opinion of Pat Buchanan. I believe that he also writes for the VDare website, which (unless I'm mistaken -- and I might be) is among those banned by Free Republic.

45 posted on 06/18/2014 9:45:31 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Regarding a phrase in my prior post, I mentioned that I thought the VDare website was banned from Free Republic. Is that still the case as is was in 2002? This is related to the thread since Pat Buchanan is listed among the writers over there.
46 posted on 06/18/2014 10:05:24 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex

Hey Nortex!

Why don’t you spend more time learning what’s actually going on and less trying to shut people up?


47 posted on 06/18/2014 10:49:51 PM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (Peace On Earth! Purity of Essence! McCain/Ripper 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Forgotten Amendments
Why don’t you spend more time learning what’s actually going on and less trying to shut people up?

Thanks for the advice, really. I'm 73 years of age and still actively engaged in the learning process. Although my fundamental principles have remained unaltered (pro-God, pro-life, pro-gun and anti-sodomy), thanks to Free Republic, I've been schooled and have readjusted my thinking.

A few posts back, you'll see that I was educated concerning Pat Buchanan by a stalwart FReeper who exposed some truths that I formerly didn't know.

If you sincerely think that I'm trying to shut people up rather than engage in a true give-and-take dialog, just point the boss to my posts and I'm certain he'll take the appropriate measures to void my login here.

48 posted on 06/18/2014 11:06:45 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: Forgotten Amendments
You have a creepy view of what FR is about.

I'll admit to being dense on this matter so I kindly ask you to educate me. Take a look at my "About Page" where I reveal much about myself and my posting history. What is it precisely do you find "creepy"?

Free Republic is the go-to source for breaking news, informed opinion from the smartest people in the world and a site for Conservative Activism as evidenced by the ultimate firing of Dan Rather, the chain of events all started by FR.

If you find me so loathsome that you rather I not respond further in this thread, I'll be glad to vacate it. Just indicate your preference and I'll oblige in the spirit of good will and Christian FRiendship.

50 posted on 06/18/2014 11:25:30 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 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