Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Aaron J. Gi » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:07:25


Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
article.

http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

--
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes."
    -- Oscar Wilde

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Jon Ensli » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:24:11

Quote:

> Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
> pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
> article.

> http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

There is a big problem with this article however.  It assumes the
traditional "statist" point of view...saying the Islamic militants have
only gotten hold of three states and they are all failures.

All it will take is one group to get a hold of one nuclear weapon, and
detonate that weapon in a big city, for them to inflict more fatalities
than we have seen in years.

My problem with Iraq is simply that we were wrong and we at best should
have known better.  I think we have to hit al-Qaeda hard and we are
completety in our rights to do so on a unilateral basis.

Jon

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by sw.. » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:31:33


Quote:

>Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
>pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
>article.

>http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

Did he foresee 9/11 ?

Does he now really think that is the ceiling on the damage terrorists
can inflict ?

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Aaron J. Gi » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:26:07

Quote:


> > Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
> > pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
> > article.
> > http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

> There is a big problem with this article however.  It assumes the
> traditional "statist" point of view...saying the Islamic militants
> have only gotten hold of three states and they are all failures.

> All it will take is one group to get a hold of one nuclear weapon, and
> detonate that weapon in a big city, for them to inflict more
> fatalities than we have seen in years.

I don't view that as a problem we can do much about.  There's really
nothing we can do about every bad person in the world, Islamic or not.
We need to change much of our foriegn policy so that we don't make
ourselves as big a target.  The only other option is to continue down
a path of agression against any country that dares to defy our
wishes.  I don't think that policy is going to make us any safer.

Quote:
> My problem with Iraq is simply that we were wrong and we at best
> should have known better.  I think we have to hit al-Qaeda hard and we
> are completety in our rights to do so on a unilateral basis.

I agree, and Buchanan does as well.  As he states, most of the Arab
world are either allies or neutral towards us.  If we were willing to
work with them to root out al-Qaeda, as many of them have vested
interests in our success and al-Queda's defeat, I think we would have
been much more successful than we have been thus far.

--
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make
 an exception."
    -- Groucho Marx

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Aaron J. Gi » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 04:11:15

Quote:



> >Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
> >pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
> >article.

> >http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

> Did he foresee 9/11 ?

> Does he now really think that is the ceiling on the damage terrorists
> can inflict ?

Obviously not.

'To suggest Frum and Perle are over the top is not to imply we not take
seriously the threat of terror attacks on airliners, in malls, from
dirty bombs, or, God forbid, a crude atomic device smuggled in by
Ryder truck or container ship. Yet even this will never "overthrow our
civilization."'

His point is that the terror threat has been greatly exaggerated by a
climate of fear.  3,000 dead in the WTC attacks is terrible, but
compared with the great wars this country have been involved in, it's
not that many.  The question we have to ask ourselves is are we
willing to enter into a state of perpetual war against anyone we
perceive to be a threat in order for a feeling of security?

Also, it's clear from Perle's statements that he is advocating a Pax
Americana where we become the protector of everyone everywhere for the
foreseeable future:

'Say the authors: "We must hunt down the individual terrorists before
they kill our people or /others/ .... We must deter /all regimes/ that
use terror as a weapon of state against anyone, /American or not/".'

Do you think this policy has been adequately described to the American
public?  Do you think the American public would agree with it?

--
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
    -- Ambrose Bierce

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Clockwork Orang » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:03:21

76 trombones in the big parade, Jon Enslin

Quote:
>> Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
>> pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
>> article.

>> http://SportToday.org/

> There is a big problem with this article however.

You mean, the fact that it was written by Pat Buchanan? Or were you
referring to something else? Personally, I never got past the former.

Pat Buchanan is the quintessential whacko religious nut right-wing
assclown. It's ***heads like him that sometimes make me ashamed to
be a registered Republican. Fortunately the Democrats have no
shortage of whacko ***head assclowns themselves.

--
Cheers,
--Jeff (RSFC's token Miami Redhawks fan)

"And maybe (tonight) he'll drop-kick one through
the uprights. Did you know drop-kicks are still
allowed by the rules? The other day, Ben drop-kicked
one in on the run from 45 yards out."
  --Miami coach Terry Hoeppner

BEN ROETHLISBERGER - RSFC's 2003 Heisman Trophy winner!

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Jefferson N. Glapsk » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:51:46



Quote:


> > > Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
> > > pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
> > > article.
> > > http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

> > There is a big problem with this article however.  It assumes the
> > traditional "statist" point of view...saying the Islamic militants
> > have only gotten hold of three states and they are all failures.

> > All it will take is one group to get a hold of one nuclear weapon, and
> > detonate that weapon in a big city, for them to inflict more
> > fatalities than we have seen in years.

> I don't view that as a problem we can do much about.  There's really
> nothing we can do about every bad person in the world, Islamic or not.
> We need to change much of our foriegn policy so that we don't make
> ourselves as big a target.  The only other option is to continue down
> a path of agression against any country that dares to defy our
> wishes.  I don't think that policy is going to make us any safer.

White flags are on sale at Le Mart de Wal.

--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.soccersucks.org (NSFW)

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Jeffrey Davi » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:12:01

Quote:



>>Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
>>pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
>>article.

>>http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

> Did he foresee 9/11 ?

> Does he now really think that is the ceiling on the damage terrorists
> can inflict ?

So, according to neo-cons, American foreign policy MUST be directed by
our most fevered imaginings?
 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by sw.. » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:31:03

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:12:01 -0500, Jeffrey Davis

Quote:




>So, according to neo-cons, American foreign policy MUST be directed by
>our most fevered imaginings?

I'd take a neo-con over a neo-isolationist any day.
 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Jeffrey Davi » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:34:17

Quote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:12:01 -0500, Jeffrey Davis




>>So, according to neo-cons, American foreign policy MUST be directed by
>>our most fevered imaginings?

> I'd take a neo-con over a neo-isolationist any day.

Simply because Pat Buchanan believes something doesn't make it false.
The neo-con belief that we can eliminate "evil" is so infantile (and
smug) that it defies belief.

When a group of the powerful don't believe Lord Acton's epigram appies
to them, keep your eyes on them. Even better, get up and tackle 'em.

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by t_mar » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:24:09



Quote:

> Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
> pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
> article.

Not really, and he doesn't really address the "neo-con" philosophy here so
much as what much of the public seems to believe is neo-con philosophy.

And anyone who falls back on the tired "We thought they'd welcome us, we
were wrong!" argument on the basis of guerilla attacks in Iraq pretty much
reveals their bias and runs into a brick wall right there.  Most Iraqis, by
all measures, while eager to see us go as soon as the situation allows, are
exceedingly happy Saddam, his sons and the prospect of decades more under
the Baathist regime are history.

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Trevor Zion Bauknigh » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:38:44



Quote:
> > Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
> > pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
> > article.

> Not really, and he doesn't really address the "neo-con" philosophy here so
> much as what much of the public seems to believe is neo-con philosophy.

Actually he pretty much nails it in two recent columns.  The latest one
includes this gem from David Wurmser:

"to broaden the [Middle East] conflict to strike fatally ... the regimes
of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza ... to establish the
recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is
suicidal."

and later, identifies neo-con goals as such:

"To its neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax
Americana, global democracy - about getting hold of America's power to
make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous."

Sounds about right to me.  Where do you think Buchanan strays from the
essential neo-con message?

Trev

--
"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Tom Enrig » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:35:35


Quote:
> Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
> pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
> article.

> http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

That depends.  What is a "neo-con?"

Could Pat Buchanan, in your opinion, ever write something that could
destroy the entire left-wing philosophy? I would bet that Buchanan's
mighty pen can only slay right-wing philosophies.

-TOE

Lying Right-Wing Sycophant

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Trevor Zion Bauknigh » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:54:06



Quote:
> > Regardless what you opinion is of Buchanan, you've got to admit he
> > pretty much destroys the the entire neo-con philosophy in this
> > article.

> > http://SportToday.org/

> That depends.  What is a "neo-con?"

Specifically, it is one of a group of mostly Jewish former liberals who
have taken a sort of Pax Americana stand which depends heavily on world
*** by the US, beginning with the making of the Middle East our
playground.  Note to idiots:  I'm not anti-Semitic by noting that many
of these men are Jewish.  They just are.  Look them up.  They're all
disciples of Irving Kristol, whose son William is a prominent neo-con.

More loosely, the term includes fanboy sycophants who adhere to the same
philosophy for whatever reason, be it religion, unquestioning patriotism
or moneypower.  Bush falls into this category, and as a tough-talking
Texas simp, made a perfect Presidential candidate for the power brokers
to back.

I'm pretty sure that Pat Buchanan knows what a "neo-con" is, BTW.

Trev

--
"Hypotheses are initially assumed false, by definition. Science is about
proving them true." - Daniel Seriff

 
 
 

Pat Buchanan on the neo-cons

Post by Ernst Blofel » Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:54:58

Quote:


>>Does he now really think that is the ceiling on the damage terrorists
>>can inflict ?

> Obviously not.

> 'To suggest Frum and Perle are over the top is not to imply we not take
> seriously the threat of terror attacks on airliners, in malls, from
> dirty bombs, or, God forbid, a crude atomic device smuggled in by
> Ryder truck or container ship. Yet even this will never "overthrow our
> civilization."'

> His point is that the terror threat has been greatly exaggerated by a
> climate of fear.  3,000 dead in the WTC attacks is terrible, but
> compared with the great wars this country have been involved in, it's
> not that many.

There's a winner of a platform: Quitcher***in about a measly few
thousand dead and suck it up. Even if they nuke New York and maybe
a few other cities we'll still have Des Moines.

Al Qaeda was in the process of becoming a quasi-state entity with
access to biological and chemical weapons. They'd happily kill
millions of Americans if they had an opportunity, and they were
working steadily to get that opportunity. And they wouldn't stop
because of some change to American policy or other. It is our
existence as a free nation that broadcasts Baywatch and doesn't
lock up women that pisses them off. It's them or us, and I want
them to be pink mist after catching a JDAM.