[FRgal4u]

like it or not, Israel is a factor here...

put it in a positive light - this iraq conflict is to prevent the unthinkable..imagine saddam has nukes, wmd[s] and suddenly he tosses one to tel aviv...we will see worldwar 3...USA will get suck in regardless

put it in a negative light, Israel did make noises about after Iraq, Iran is next the US should attack...

so the paleoconservative like Buchanan is not entirely wrong with his assessement...

as long as there is no peace between Israel and Palestinians - there wont be any peace in the region...

Personally, I do think the like of Wolfowitz and Perle are not necessarily pursuing this war simply based on the security of the American people...

just a simple observation..

[jacquej]

I agree with you. I think Pat Buchanan suffers from the notion that our first President's views on getting involved in foreign affairs should be followed, but forgets how big the oceans were back then.

I wish they were still that big, and if so, I would probably agree with him, as I hate war, hate the way our boys have to fight and die, when we do nothing wrong.

But, alas, the oceans now are just little ditches, and therefore we have to be like the minutemen, and hop over these at the drop of an email in order to defend everything Geo. Washingtom fought for, and that is, our freedom from tyranny.

I really do not think Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite. I have no idea what is behind his views, but assume it is wishful thinking that we can remain uninvolved in the world.

The problem is that the world has changed so dramatically since WW2. These changes are going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to go thru without WW3.

We are in the early stages of that now, and while I do not read the Bible literally, I certainly can find a metaphor or two in Revelation that describes in the understanding of St. John what a difficult time we must endure.

So, sorry, Pat, there is no turning back.

[Optimist]

IF the US is "fighting Israel's wars" it is only to keep Israel out of the Mid-East fray. And why would the US do that? ..... because it is in our interest!!!

With regard to attacking Iraq on Israel's behalf, if it was up to Israel, we would be attacking Iran, who Israel has felt is a much greater danger (ie. terrorist organization support, and a nuclear program about to go on-line).

The US attacked Iraq the first time because of a threat to the supply of oil, which demonstrates the significance of a Mid-East presence. The problems we currently have with basing in Turkey and Saudi Arabia should raise questions as to the reliability of these "allies" as opposed to our strongest friend in the region - Israel.

Keeping Israel at bay is in our interests - not theirs - since Israel would gladly take up the fight. ....We just might not like the way they do it

....When it comes to her security, Israel doesn't play games the way the West does ... you might say

"Homey don't play that."

[bribriagain]

Today Rush said that Buchanan's statements have the net effect of dividing conservatives; I tend to agree.

[rmlew]

like it or not, Israel is a factor here...

Israel is not taking part int he war by choice. Saddam and Buchannan are trying to use it as a shield.

put it in a negative light, Israel did make noises about after Iraq, Iran is next the US should attack...

So, the Islamist regime supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, and openly keeping members of Al-Qaeda, should be ignored because Israel doesn't like it?
This reminds me of the anti-Semetic isolationists who said that we should not gop to war with Hitler because Jews hate him.

so the paleoconservative like Buchanan is not entirely wrong with his assessement...
Paleocons are split on the war. Buchanan is a populist isolationist.

as long as there is no peace between Israel and Palestinians - there wont be any peace in the region...

As long as Israel exists, there will not be peace between Israel and the Arabs. As long as theer are Islamists and corrupt authoritarian regimes, there will not be peace.
There never has and never will be total peace in the region.

Personally, I do think the like of Wolfowitz and Perle are not necessarily pursuing this war simply based on the security of the American people...

No war is ever pursued just for security.
Are you saying that Wolfowitz and Perle are Israel-Firsters based on their religion?
What of Wolfowitz and Cheney?