Maybe so, but it is an existential threat to individual Americans.
Is there such a thing as a Nazi isolationist?
Yes - once a week he declares war on Israel then he refuses to go.
Pat’s either naive or just plain atupid....
Pat’s either naive or just plain stupid....
Why does it have to be. Because an American’s not on American soil when he’s beheaded does that make it ok? Are we ok with burning men in metal cages, burying children alive, beheading, etc. as long as it’s not on our soil?
Sorry Pat, but you’re missing the forest for the trees here.
A consolidation of all territories ISIS is dedicated to gaining control over, gives them the base to expand further.
Add in income streams and weapons that will certainly be purchased, and you’ve got an instant problem. And yes that problem would be an existential threat to the United States, it’s allies, and it’s interests globally.
This is where you draw the line. You do it when the fight can be won easily without massive deaths on the Western Side. If only folks would have woken up to Hitler when he could have been neutered easily.
That’s where we are with Iran too.
Either step up now and do the deed relatively easily, or simply wait until hundreds of millions die.
There’s your choices bud.
And we want to keep it from ever becoming an “existential threat”.
Some people seem to want to wait until it becomes one.
Hardening of the arteries
It’s funded by the ME puppet governments, who don’t take a dump without our approval.
It’s our force, causing mayhem, creating a “need” for our political leadership (both parties) to start more military adventures over in that part of the world.
If you look at the UK in the 1800’s, the US government and its controllers are operating in just about exactly the same manner today.
As an aside, Afghanistan still continues to produce most of the world’s heroin under the auspices of the top elite banking families.
Buchanan has to be taken with a grain of salt. If he knew 5% of what he thinks he knows, he’d be one of the most amazing human beings who have lived. I don’t dislike him, but this comment is without merit.
I strongly disagree with Pat Buchanan on this.
Bitter childless anti-Semite crank Buchanan showing some extra crank in his twilight years.
That might be true at the moment, but if ISIS acquires nuclear weapons or other WMD...
Absolute truth Pat!! We have no business stopping Sunni from killing Shiites. We don’t care. We need to close our borders and remove or isolate every Wahhabi Sunni in our country. NOW!!
As Sherman before them, every general knows that war is hell. It is the last resort of any sane people. I will never fault a president for engaging in deep contemplation over whether or not to send young men into battle!
However, there comes a time when the unreasonable and violent invades, when war is upon you and blood will spill without regard to the wishes of peaceful people. At such a moment, no president mindful of history should hesitate or retreat from his duty to the freedom entrusted to him! More will die than needed to if we wait at the waters edge, afraid to commit to the early actions required for swift victory!
I like Pat Buchanan. He’s rarely wrong and I don’t believe he’s anti-Semitic. He treats Israel matter-of-factly and ‘all things being equal’. It’s a clinical view without any Christian biases and sympathies. He’s thinking existentially.
In this case he’s not right
The reason why that's a logical-sounding but unrealistic standard is simply that by the time the threat is undeniably existential, it's too late. A fellow holding a shotgun is not an existential threat to me; pointing it at me with his finger on the trigger, he is. Waiting until that standard is reached is potentially fatal.
Where ISIS is on that continuum is the issue at hand. All other things being equal and with a clean slate in hand, I'd probably be siding with Buchanan here. But they're not, and the slate has already been marked up by the past. All other things being equal, we would sit it out until Turkey, a NATO member, were threatened, which given Turkey's anti-American behavior during the second Gulf War and the Islamist nature of its present government, is pretty damn ironic. But we are where we are, not where theory tells us we ought to be.
The real problem is that the current administration wants it both ways: troops out of the country but enough there to train the Iraqi army to do a job it may not want to do and may not be up to if it did. That isn't a recipe for success; in fact, no one in the administration has favored us with a description of what they think success might look like. If they do, I could change my mind, but at the current level of indecision, I wouldn't risk a single soldier or Marine. Unfortunately, we already are.
Ja, the problem ist mit dem Juden.