Posted on 02/16/2016 11:18:28 AM PST by xzins
George W. Bush ran on NO NATION BUILDING.
Remember that? Non interventionist was W’s campaign promise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGDwvAbx_fg
Bush on nation building: 2000 presidential debates
http://www.debates.org/?page=october-11-2000-debate-transcript
Yup. Absolutely.
I’ll go further.
Shah of Iran
Mubarak of Egypt
Saddam
Kaddafi
People are slow learners.
You can also make a case that establishment Republicans are on the same page as Clinton Democrats on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton's agenda for Syria (i.e. ground troops to overthrow Assad followed by nation-building) is identical to Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush's agenda. So the counter to saying that Buchanan (or, more to the point, Trump) "sounds like a liberal" is to point out that his opponents sound like another type of liberal.
The bottom line is that there have always been both liberal and conservative interventionists, as well as both liberal and conservative anti-interventionists. Calling your opponents "liberals" because they don't share your views is a game either side of the debate can play.
I hadn’t thought about that. It could have been.
Autocorrect makes me crazy.
Does anyone not remember the video with in the first few weeks of the start of the war with the stuff buried in the desert? And in the caravans?
I agree with Hillary an Bernie Sanders that the sky is blue. That doesn’t make me a hard core leftist.
Which wife?
A lot can happen in 3 years.
Wait. What?
It could be as simple as reading the reports of the libertarians that all the supposed WMDs were not provable.
That could change someone in 2000 to a different view in 2003.
Does he float?
Dear Finnegan,
No disrespect to you. I have strong feelings about taking US military action and so did our founders.
I do not believe the Democrats own the antiwar space. Democrats started most wars prior to Bush.
I’m one of those odd ducks who think there were WMDs, but those were nothing compared to the capability to quickly retool to production of WMDs.
Sadly, the WMDs that turned up were old and were discredited by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION as being stockpiles of WMDs.
BUSH never defended himself.
However, there were many reports prior to the war that found no effective WMDs in Iraq.
I don’t think it’s unusual that lots of people believed those reports. It sounds like Trump was one of them.
That is simply not true. Remember the contractors in Fallujah? Well I do, and so do a lot of other people on here and we were furious that the Bush Administration did nothing about that! That freakin town should have been leveled. We put Christians at risk and they had to flee to Syria. Muslims were burning down churches while Bush was rebuilding Mosques, you know “religion of peace” and all. There were plenty of conservatives angry about that. Angry about the Patriot Act, and the fact that Saudi Arabia is who should have been “shocked and awed,” not Iraq.
“You can also make a case that establishment Republicans are on the same page as Clinton Democrats on foreign policy.”
Absolutely, yes.
I posted a thread on just one such example about a month ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3382823/posts
As far as the Iraq war, I do not think that was interventionist. It was self defense in response to a direct attack.
I agree with a lot of what you said.
I felt we should have occupied the entire Middle East after 911, WWII style.
The war was carried out much too PC.
That is very different than Bush Lied People Died and saying Hussein should have remained in power.
Why were you against removing Saddam Hussein?
________________
Misread your question. Two reasons:
1. US should not be in the removing head of government business. Firstly, our form of govt does not work well with certain poplulations. Democracy and Const. Republics work well with educated populaces, without education and mental horsepower, you end up with mob rule.
2. I believe in US sovereignty and believe in the rights of sovereign states and have little interest in chipping away at American sovereignty. If we disrespect the rights of sovereign countries, we leave the US open to future problems.
Would you like the UN forces landing on US soil if they do not like the way our elections turn out? We have a right to existence and self governance; so do other nations.
I view many of the multilateral defense and trade agreements that we have entered with great disdain. If you read some cases coming out of the International Law courts, you might agree with me.
Thanks.
But you did not answer why you were for keeping Hussein in power after 911.
Thanks for answering.
“US should not be in the removing head of government business.”
I generally agree. But we removed Hitler. Germany did not attack us.
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.