| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| If the US did what Buccanan recomends would Al Qaeda or the Iranians quit? Probably not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
so having Buchanan attack Bush says nothing about Bush's support base erosion.
|
I disagree (obviously). While Buchanan has some differing views, he and his followers form one segment of Bush's base. They maybe weren't thrilled to death when Bush won his party's nomination, but Buchanan and crowd voted for him rather than for Gore or Kerry.
There may be some, but I can't think of one off-hand: Who else on the Right has come out so harshly against Bush's mid-east policies? |
I have voted for and supported Buchanan, yet I voted against Baby Bush twice. I very much doubt I was the only Buchanan supporter who did not transfer my support to Bush.
As I said before, Buchanan was against the first Gulf War, at a time when hardly a voice in the land was heard against the war that was allegedly waged to "free Kuwait".
I suppose you have to draw a distinction between those on the right who are internationalists and those who still care about domestic politics. Most seem to be in the former grouping. Buchanan has always been in the latter.
Joo, or even I, may argue too that Buchanan is not a member of the "Right". Buchanan, while a spent force now, back in the day had significant support among the U.S. Left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| If the US did what Buccanan recomends would Al Qaeda or the Iranians quit? Probably not. |
That is just a small part of the picture.
But anyway, Buchanan would likely argue (a) the blowback theory; (b) it's not our problem; and (c) we're not the frickin' world's policeman.
And hey, the U.S. is doing what Bush wants and Al Qaeda and the Iranians show zero signs of quitting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Buchanan is not a member of the "Right". |
Which explains why he tried to get the Republican nomination for pres. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Buchanan is not a member of the "Right". |
Which explains why he tried to get the Republican nomination for pres. |
In case you haven't noticed, we have a two-party system in the U.S., i.e. few choices.
Because he thought he stood a better chance of gaining the Republican nomination, he chose that route. You neglect to mention he also ran as the Reform Party candidate.
Anyhow, that doesn't really matter now -- what matters is that he's right on this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| If the US did what Buccanan recomends would Al Qaeda or the Iranians quit? Probably not. |
That is just a small part of the picture.
But anyway, Buchanan would likely argue (a) the blowback theory; (b) it's not our problem; and (c) we're not the frickin' world's policeman.
And hey, the U.S. is doing what Bush wants and Al Qaeda and the Iranians show zero signs of quitting. |
1) The US didn't make Al Qadea.
2) Al Qadea will attack anyway cause they want the mideast and more.
Doesn't Bin Laden blame the US for Chechnya and China's oppression of muslims? And for a whole lot of things the US could not possibly have anything to do with?
the US isn't the worlds policeman but the US has to do something to prevent certain from attacking us.It not about being the worlds policeman it is about the US prenvent other nations by their illegal acts becoming more powerful at the expense of the US. The US doesn't have too allow nations that are hostile become powerful by their illegal acts.
In 1991 If Saddam had gotten the gulf and developed nuclear weapons then you would have had an Iraqi power in the gulf. Saddam would have become much more powerful and the US would have become weaker.
Futhermore if the US didn't give 3 billion a year to Israel would Iran and Al Qaeda say ok? I don't think so. As long as the US trades with Israel , as long as the US trades with Egypt or Saudi Arabia Al Qaeda is going to be mad.
Basically the message from Iran and Al Qaeda is don't give money to those we don't like, don't trade with those we don't like. Don't vote at the UN in a way we don't like and get out of the mideast on the double( -so we can conquer it whick will give us the power of all that oil which we will give us power over your economy and influence world wide. If you don't then we are going to blow things up.
and in the case of Al Qadea they have demands out side the mideast.
| Quote: |
| the U.S. is doing what Bush wants and Al Qaeda and the Iranians show zero signs of quitting |
and Al Qaeda and Iran were going after the US before Bush was president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Buchanan is not a member of the "Right".
Because he thought he stood a better chance of gaining the Republican nomination, he chose that route. |
Please excuse me for a moment while I take some aspirin for this headache you are giving me. Let me get this straight...Pat ain't a conservative, he just thought more conservatives than liberals would vote for him. Is that what you said? Is it because he could fool more conservatives into voting for someone they don't agree with? I'm not sure what you are saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Futhermore if the US didn't give 3 billion a year to Israel would Iran and Al Qaeda say ok? |
A lot of people in the middle east are gonna hate truth, justice, and the American way, no matter what the US does re: foreign policy.
However, if the US weren't involved in middle east politics to the extent that it is, the hatred of TJATAW would likely remain at an abstract level for most people. They'd see stuff about American decadence on TV and just shrug their shoulders, thinking "gee what a messed-up place, glad I don't live there". Demagogic politicians would still probably try to whip up anti-American sentiment for their own political gain, but the receptive audience for such rhetoric would be vastly diminished. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Futhermore if the US didn't give 3 billion a year to Israel would Iran and Al Qaeda say ok? |
A lot of people in the middle east are gonna hate truth, justice, and the American way, no matter what the US does re: foreign policy.
However, if the US weren't involved in middle east politics to the extent that it is, the hatred of TJATAW would likely remain at an abstract level for most people. They'd see stuff about American decadence on TV and just shrug their shoulders, thinking "gee what a messed-up place, glad I don't live there". Demagogic politicians would still probably try to whip up anti-American sentiment for their own political gain, but the receptive audience for such rhetoric would be vastly diminished. |
Or would they complain that the US supports India in the Kashmir? Or China's oppression of muslims? The US gets blamed for that too.
Is the US so involved in mideast politics? I think that is a cliche. What the US trades with Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Yes the US gives 2B a year to Egypt but Egypt is just one country in the mideast.
The US did take down Saddam (himself a mass killer of Muslims) but that is in part cause Saddam wanted to conquer the gulf for himself.
I think the reason for the hate of the US in the mideast is cause the regimes and elties fire their populations up for their own reasons.
| Quote: |
As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone � allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities � could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed.
The Iraqi writer Kanan Makiya has drawn attention to an incendiary article in the Baath party's Al-Thawra newspaper in April 1991 while Saddam's army was still trying to crush the southern rebellion. The author attacked the Marsh Arabs for their poverty, backwardness and immorality, referring to them as vicious, slatternly and dirty. "One often hears stories of perversion that would make your mouth drop," the paper said. |
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm
Khomeni and Bin Laden have killed many muslims argubly for reasons more sinister than the reasons the US has for its actions and not almost no one in the region said a word.
Khomeni and Saddam by persecution and war probably killed many more muslims than Israel has in its 50 years and it wasn't held against them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| If the US did what Buccanan recomends would Al Qaeda or the Iranians quit? Probably not. |
That is just a small part of the picture.
But anyway, Buchanan would likely argue (a) the blowback theory; (b) it's not our problem; and (c) we're not the frickin' world's policeman.
And hey, the U.S. is doing what Bush wants and Al Qaeda and the Iranians show zero signs of quitting. |
1) The US didn't make Al Qadea.
2) Al Qadea will attack anyway cause they want the mideast and more.
Doesn't Bin Laden blame the US for Chechnya and China's oppression of muslims? And for a whole lot of things the US could not possibly have anything to do with?
the US isn't the worlds policeman but the US has to do something to prevent certain from attacking us.It not about being the worlds policeman it is about the US prenvent other nations by their illegal acts becoming more powerful at the expense of the US. The US doesn't have too allow nations that are hostile become powerful by their illegal acts.
In 1991 If Saddam had gotten the gulf and developed nuclear weapons then you would have had an Iraqi power in the gulf. Saddam would have become much more powerful and the US would have become weaker.
Futhermore if the US didn't give 3 billion a year to Israel would Iran and Al Qaeda say ok? I don't think so. As long as the US trades with Israel , as long as the US trades with Egypt or Saudi Arabia Al Qaeda is going to be mad.
Basically the message from Iran and Al Qaeda is don't give money to those we don't like, don't trade with those we don't like. Don't vote at the UN in a way we don't like and get out of the mideast on the double( -so we can conquer it whick will give us the power of all that oil which we will give us power over your economy and influence world wide. If you don't then we are going to blow things up.
and in the case of Al Qadea they have demands out side the mideast.
| Quote: |
| the U.S. is doing what Bush wants and Al Qaeda and the Iranians show zero signs of quitting |
and Al Qaeda and Iran were going after the US before Bush was president. |
What if the US had begun a program to relieve itself from oil dependence way back in 1991 in response to the invasion, and continued it up to the present day?
Just a thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What if the US had begun a program to relieve itself from oil dependence way back in 1991 in response to the invasion, and continued it up to the present day?
Just a thought.
|
I've been thinking about this some lately, too. I was around for the first oil shock back in the early 70's. People were really annoyed.
While the government could do a lot more to encourage oil conservation than it has, it seems to me that solar and wind energy sources have been developed as much as they could be in this time. I think everyone is hoping for a silver bullet to cure the problem. I'm sure there are loads of people out there looking. The trouble is, there is no great alternative yet and there is no guarantee there will be.
There are Thomas Edison wannabes all over the world who have been beating their brains out for the last 30 years trying to figure out a solution. Imagine the fees that will go to the patent holders if someone does 'get it'. They will make Bill Gates' fortune look like peanuts. So the incentive is there.
Could it be that there just isn't a cheap, clean, safe alternative and that very soon energy will go to only the rich? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mith wrote:
| Quote: |
What if the US had begun a program to relieve itself from oil dependence way back in 1991 in response to the invasion, and continued it up to the present day?
Just a thought. |
that of course makes a lot of sense.
However Americans' don't want to pay gas taxes and they like huge cars and well they don't want to do what is neccessary to really go for the true knockout punch on Al Qaeda , Iran and Venezuala.
Low oil prices were a major factor in the fall of the Soviet Union.
Anyway Pat Buchanan is a hard core libertarian and libertarian's for the most part oppose gas taxes.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:09 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| If the US did what Buccanan recomends would Al Qaeda or the Iranians quit? Probably not. |
That is just a small part of the picture.
But anyway, Buchanan would likely argue (a) the blowback theory; (b) it's not our problem; and (c) we're not the frickin' world's policeman.
And hey, the U.S. is doing what Bush wants and Al Qaeda and the Iranians show zero signs of quitting. |
1) The US didn't make Al Qadea.
2) Al Qadea will attack anyway cause they want the mideast and more.
Doesn't Bin Laden blame the US for Chechnya and China's oppression of muslims? And for a whole lot of things the US could not possibly have anything to do with?
the US isn't the worlds policeman but the US has to do something to prevent certain from attacking us.It not about being the worlds policeman it is about the US prenvent other nations by their illegal acts becoming more powerful at the expense of the US. The US doesn't have too allow nations that are hostile become powerful by their illegal acts.
In 1991 If Saddam had gotten the gulf and developed nuclear weapons then you would have had an Iraqi power in the gulf. Saddam would have become much more powerful and the US would have become weaker.
Futhermore if the US didn't give 3 billion a year to Israel would Iran and Al Qaeda say ok? I don't think so. As long as the US trades with Israel , as long as the US trades with Egypt or Saudi Arabia Al Qaeda is going to be mad.
Basically the message from Iran and Al Qaeda is don't give money to those we don't like, don't trade with those we don't like. Don't vote at the UN in a way we don't like and get out of the mideast on the double( -so we can conquer it whick will give us the power of all that oil which we will give us power over your economy and influence world wide. If you don't then we are going to blow things up.
and in the case of Al Qadea they have demands out side the mideast.
| Quote: |
| the U.S. is doing what Bush wants and Al Qaeda and the Iranians show zero signs of quitting |
and Al Qaeda and Iran were going after the US before Bush was president. |
What if the US had begun a program to relieve itself from oil dependence way back in 1991 in response to the invasion, and continued it up to the present day?
Just a thought. |
I think Joo would've agreed with that course. I would've. The least we could've done is liberate ourselves from the Iranian/Al Qaeda trumpcard by building multiple refineries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo wrote:
| Quote: |
Anyway Pat Buchanan is a hard core libertarian and libertarian's for the most part oppose gas taxes.
|
Pat Buchanan is not a libertarian. He is a social conservative and an economic protectionist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kerry was a Bush Lite anyways. Buchanan has always spoke out loudly against Bush's foreign policies. But Kerry was essentially of the same calibre as Bush on that stance. Its no wonder given the two choices, Buchanan went with Bush. The same things would be occuring in Iraq regardless of which one got the Presidency. Kerry's position on the War in Iraq was he was going to do the same thing, but get European support because he wasn't Bush. Its no wonder that why Buchanan detested Bush and neocons and the War in Iraq, given a Bush and Bush Lite, he'd go with Bush for the few varying domestic policies as their foreign policies were essentially the same.
The Democratic party had some speakers out againt Iraq - Howard Dean, General Wesley Clark, etc. But too many Kerry's and Lieberman's who gave undying support for the war. When the Democratic Party gave its nomination to Kerry, it was fairly clear that the majority of voters within the Democratic Party support the War in Iraq. Why would Buchanan vote for a party who he doesn't agree with domestically or even foreign policy related as the Dem's foreign policy essentially aligned itself with the Republicans with their nomination of Kerry in 2004.
Personally I find it extremely refreshing when you got the many fiscal conservatives within the Republican party (The Economist magazine included in that).. and other guys like Buchanan who've always been against the President in regards to the War in Iraq.
Anyways, here is an article written by Buchanan who openly detested Bush's foreign policy all along, and how he justified voting for Bush over Kerry despite that: http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
