Posted on 07/29/2014 5:48:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
With the party united, the odds are now at least even that the GOP will not only hold the House but also capture the Senate in November.
But before traditional conservatives cheer that prospect, they might take a closer look at the foreign policy that a Republican Senate would seek to impose upon the nation.
Specifically, they should spend time reading S. 2277, the "Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014," introduced by Sen. Bob Corker on May 1, and endorsed by half of the Senate's GOP caucus.
As ranking Republican on the foreign relations committee, Corker is in line to become chairman, should the GOP take the Senate. That makes this proposal a gravely serious matter.
Corker's bill would declare Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine "major non-NATO allies" of the United States, move NATO forces into Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, accelerate the building of an ABM system in Eastern Europe, and authorize U.S. intelligence and military aid for Ukraine's army in the Donbass war with Russian-backed separatists.
U.S. aid would include antitank and antiaircraft weapons.
S. 2277 would direct the secretary of state to intensify efforts to strengthen democratic institutions inside the Russian Federation, e.g., subvert Vladimir Putin's government, looking toward regime change.
If Putin has not vacated Crimea and terminated support for Ukraine's separatist rebels within seven days of passage of the Corker Ultimatum, sweeping sanctions would be imposed on Russian officials, banks and energy companies, including Gazprom.
Economic relations between us would be virtually severed.
In short, this is an ultimatum to Russia that she faces a new Cold War if she does not get out of Ukraine and Crimea, and it is a U.S. declaration that we will now regard three more former Soviet republics -- Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia -- as allies.
A small, weak country might accept this dictation from a superpower.
But Russia, where anti-Americanism is virulent and rampant and the Russian people support Putin's actions in Ukraine, would want him to tell the Americans just what to do with their ultimatum.
And how Russia would respond is not difficult to predict.
Our demand that she get out of Crimea and leave her two-century-old naval base at Sevastopol in the custody of President Petro Poroshenko in Kiev and his U.S. allies, would be laughed off.
Putin would tell us that Crimea has voted to return to Russia. It's ours, and we're going to keep it. Now deal with it.
To make good on our latest red line, we would have to start shipping weapons to Kiev, in which case Russia, with superior forces closer, would likely move preemptively into East Ukraine.
What would our NATO allies do then?
The U.S. directive to the State Department to work with NGOs in Russia, blatant intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, would be answered with a general expulsion of these agencies from Moscow.
We would not sit still for this kind of open subversion in the United States. What makes us think they would?
And where do we come off telling the Russians what kind of government they may have? Do we do that with our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Is there more freedom in Egypt, to which we send billions annually in foreign aid, than in Russia?
Is there more freedom in China?
How do we think Beijing would respond if Corker & Co. openly declared not only their right but their intent to funnel U.S. funds to civic organizations to bring about an end to single-party Communist rule?
The Russian people, today backing Putin by 80 percent, seem happier with their government than we Americans do with ours.
But it may be this idea of installing a ballistic missile defense, an ABM system, in Poland and the Czech Republic, that is most dangerous of all.
Putin has already signaled that this would cross his red line, that if we start implanting antimissile missiles in Eastern Europe, he will reply by installing offensive missiles.
The Reagan-Gorbachev INF treaty to eliminate all intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe -- the USSR's triple-warhead SS-20s, and our Pershing II and cruise missiles -- could wind up in the dumpster.
We could have a mini-Cuban missile crisis in Eastern Europe.
And how would our German allies react to Russian missiles rising in Kaliningrad, the former Prussian capital of Konigsberg, wedged between Lithuania and Poland?
Russia and Ukraine have been like Siamese twins for a thousand years. When did where and how they separate become our strategic concern?
Under Obama, the U.S. has declined to intervene in civil wars in Syria, Ukraine and Libya, or to go back in force in Iraq. He is pulling us out of Afghanistan.
The American Imperium is folding up. Retrenchment is underway.
If the Republican counteroffer to Obama's is a return to the compulsive interventionism of Bush II, this is where some of us will be getting off.
I think that's the impression Pat is giving me.
He warns against getting involved but does not tell us what would happen if we just stayed home.
The party’s united? That’s news to me.
As always, Pat knocks it out of the park.
What would Pat Buchanan’s policy be after 9/11 ?
Same advice he gave the French and the Brits when Germany invaded the Rhineland. Very happy he did not get elected President.
Too late for Iraq and too late for Afghanistan. It is also almost to late for America.
We still have two more years of Obama and a weakened military.
Pat’s policies would have prevented a 9/11
RE: Pat’s policies would have prevented a 9/11
Can you elaborate...
From the article Pat wrote these two points...
_______________________________
1) But it may be this idea of installing a ballistic missile defense, an ABM system, in Poland and the Czech Republic, that is most dangerous of all.
Putin has already signaled that this would cross his red line, that if we start implanting antimissile missiles in Eastern Europe, he will reply by installing offensive missiles.
2) Under Obama, the U.S. has declined to intervene in civil wars in Syria, Ukraine and Libya, or to go back in force in Iraq. He is pulling us out of Afghanistan.
The American Imperium is folding up. Retrenchment is underway.
If the Republican counteroffer to Obama’s is a return to the compulsive interventionism of Bush II, this is where some of us will be getting off.
_____________________________
ESSENTIALLY, PAT BUCHANAN’s FOREIGN POLICY IS OBAMA’s POLICY. HE SPEAKS OF WHAT OBAMA IS DOING ( OR NOT DOING ) WITH APPROVAL.
Sure, a less interventionist foreign policy gives less reason for other’s to attack
RE: Sure, a less interventionist foreign policy gives less reason for other’s to attack
That of course assumes that Al Qaeda’s attack on America is simply related to America’s presence in the Middle East rather than their desire to establish a worldwide caliphate under Islam.
In other words, this assumes that their motives are purely political and not apocalyptically religious.
Their own words tell us that this isn’t so.
So, what would Pat do about this Jihad that considers Christian America ( their words ) the enemy that must be brought down because of her evil worldwide cultural influence?
We should arm Kiev, it is a proxy war, plain and simple.
Pat thinks appeasement with Russia will work. Where was he when Reagan gave the speech tear down this wall?
RE: Pat thinks appeasement with Russia will work. Where was he when Reagan gave the speech tear down this wall?
I think it is not so much appeasement but the desire not to get involved.
I don’t even think he believes that it was right for the US to sacrifice the thousands of men to defeat Hitler.
He was also Reagan’s White House Communications Director ( tough job when you don’t agree with your boss’ policy ).
Buchanan is a conservative on immigration. He opposes amnesty and unending mass legal immigration. He supports conservative comprehensive immigration reform,. He would greatly reduce immigration overall.
So how would Buchanan-favored policies have prevented 9-11? It’s simple; Buchanan policies on immigration (i.e. sane, conservative policies) would have made it much less likely that the hijackers would have ever been allowed in the country in the first place. They would have also made it less likely that garbage like the Boston Marathon bombers would have been admitted.
You have to remember one thing — Muhammad Atta was not here as an immigrant. He was here on a tourist/business visa.
Did Buchanan say that he would not allow Arab students to come here to train or to tour or to do business? Can you cite me a quote?
I say we lend / lease again to Kiev.
“In other words, this assumes that their motives are purely political and not apocalyptically religious.
Their own words tell us that this isn’t so.”
Their words say it is exactly so:
“Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.”
From the Late Sheik, himself.
My WAG if the Russians start a PR campaign about refugees and war crimes by the Uki mercs then the fellas in DC better be prepared for war. IMO the American propaganda efforts are worn out dogs, so unless the hacks of war can gin up the efforts I guess that eastern Ukraine is going into Kosovo like status, because no one is going to help the US prosecute a war against Russia on its own doorstep.
“Sure, a less interventionist foreign policy gives less reason for other’s to attack”
It does not have anything to do with that. That is just pure nonsense. It has to do with Jihad and radical Islam. If you don’t follow Allah you are a target to them. Simple as that.
No I can’t. But a policy change from our current pro-Democrat one of unending mass immigration towards one of low-moderate immigration would allow more scrutiny of all legal entrants. It would hopefully allow someone like Atta to be screened out, and would hopefully disallow student visas from most Muslim nations.
Conservative immigration reform would also abolish the absurd Diversity Visa Lottery and end extended family chain migration. Together with allowing fewer refugees, these changes would likely cut off most Muslim immigration. It would definitely slow it down, and reverse the insane upwards trend of Muslim immigration since 9-11
Do you disagree that ending mass immigration and reducing the numbers we allow in from all the various channels would result in fewer terrorists being admitted? Or that it would allow greater scrutiny of the lower numbers we do allow in?
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.