7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Thanks, Art,
That is the shortest and most accurate summation of the issue.
That is the shortest and most accurate summation of the issue.
Pat Buchanan rails against the war, charges President lied
- Thread starter hillbilly
- Start date
- Status
longeyes
member
Art's view seems persuasively plausible. Power and resources. Another day in the great foodchain. Which would seem to divide the onlookers and analysts into The Moralists and The Geopolitical Realists...?
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
longeyes,
Are you saying that the left has the moral high ground?
I see nothing moral in having a yellow streak.
Are you saying that the left has the moral high ground?
I see nothing moral in having a yellow streak.
longeyes
member
7.62,
No, not at all. I'm saying that the U.S. is, like other nations, pursuing its own self-interest and survival interests. I think that's realistic, not that I am condoning predatory actions anywhere by anyone. I'm tired of people I know driving gas-guzzlers who keep telling me "it's all about oil" as if they could get by without it or would be willing to pay $5 a gallon or watch our economy go into a depression. I think Art was accurately describing the way the world is and has always been.
No, not at all. I'm saying that the U.S. is, like other nations, pursuing its own self-interest and survival interests. I think that's realistic, not that I am condoning predatory actions anywhere by anyone. I'm tired of people I know driving gas-guzzlers who keep telling me "it's all about oil" as if they could get by without it or would be willing to pay $5 a gallon or watch our economy go into a depression. I think Art was accurately describing the way the world is and has always been.
Well, whether or not you support the war in Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq, it is not what really matters at this point.
What really matters in my opinion is that the United States now has a major bridgehead in the Middle East, putting the neighborhood on notice that we are not messing around any more.
The Middle East is now confronted with the most powerful nation in the world having easy access to them.
Some observers say we will be in Iraq for decades to come. And, maybe that is a good thing.
The Middle East is pretty much a basket case that is the potential breeding ground for much evil mischief, and that will probably only get worse.
Taking down Iraq MAY turn out to be a brilliant geo-political coup.
What really matters in my opinion is that the United States now has a major bridgehead in the Middle East, putting the neighborhood on notice that we are not messing around any more.
The Middle East is now confronted with the most powerful nation in the world having easy access to them.
Some observers say we will be in Iraq for decades to come. And, maybe that is a good thing.
The Middle East is pretty much a basket case that is the potential breeding ground for much evil mischief, and that will probably only get worse.
Taking down Iraq MAY turn out to be a brilliant geo-political coup.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Consider: Do not all governments consider themselves to have an unending existence? I grant that some, like Hitler's "1,000-year" Third Reich didn't make it, but that wasn't his expectation.
Our handicap in the unending chess game is our every-four-years potential for a change in direction by our leadership. As evidenced in Vietnam, many asian countries think in terms of an unchanging direction, unless the changes are by well-thought-out design.
Regardless, many in our government do look at very-long-term sequences. Iraq is not a six-month or two-year "make'em happy and leave" deal. I see the goal as a macrocosm of a very large aircraft carrier accompanied by troopships: Projection of force capability, to enhance and/or protect our long-term security. I think some folks are looking at five, fifteen or even more years there.
How long have we been in Germany? Is not oil as important to us, now, as containing the USSR was, then?
, Art
Our handicap in the unending chess game is our every-four-years potential for a change in direction by our leadership. As evidenced in Vietnam, many asian countries think in terms of an unchanging direction, unless the changes are by well-thought-out design.
Regardless, many in our government do look at very-long-term sequences. Iraq is not a six-month or two-year "make'em happy and leave" deal. I see the goal as a macrocosm of a very large aircraft carrier accompanied by troopships: Projection of force capability, to enhance and/or protect our long-term security. I think some folks are looking at five, fifteen or even more years there.
How long have we been in Germany? Is not oil as important to us, now, as containing the USSR was, then?
, ArtMalone LaVeigh
Member
Well, that's pretty much been my point all along. The problem with such geopolitical "realism" is that it's based on two fantasies:
1) That the supply of oil is infinite. I'll admit to the possibility that the fantasy is just that the world is going down the toilet and the only goal is to be riding on top, with the last few cheap supplies as we all go down.
2) That the cost of extending and projecting our military power can be borne indefinitely. We're already seeing the limits on our economy and morale in trying to support the military we have and realizing it isn't quite adequate for the two actions we're involved in now. Imagine if some of the neo-cons are successful in getting us entangled in Iran or Syria.
Well, and there is always that problem of morality. There was this guy named Jesus who lived about 2000 years ago. Not many in the "Christian" west act like they ever heard of him, at least not any leader that would hatch or approve of a scheme like Art described.
1) That the supply of oil is infinite. I'll admit to the possibility that the fantasy is just that the world is going down the toilet and the only goal is to be riding on top, with the last few cheap supplies as we all go down.
2) That the cost of extending and projecting our military power can be borne indefinitely. We're already seeing the limits on our economy and morale in trying to support the military we have and realizing it isn't quite adequate for the two actions we're involved in now. Imagine if some of the neo-cons are successful in getting us entangled in Iran or Syria.
Well, and there is always that problem of morality. There was this guy named Jesus who lived about 2000 years ago. Not many in the "Christian" west act like they ever heard of him, at least not any leader that would hatch or approve of a scheme like Art described.
As conservative as I thought I was, I was still a leftist until I read "Death of the West" by Buchanan, who is a true conservative.
I stumbled across it in my university library (I know; I can't believe they haven't burned it yet either!) and the title caught my attention.
I too thought Buchanan was a raving nutjob before I read his book.
It turned out to be the single most influential book I have ever read in my life, at least on the topics of politics and social issues, and I do NOT say that lightly. I mean, it completely changed my way of thinking and looking at the world, specifically in regards to the left, where they came from, and what their mission truly is.
If you would actually read one of his books, particularly this one, you will see what an incredibly intelligent and learned man he is. I came away from the book with nothing but respect and admiration for the man. I also bought my own copy.
He documents and backs up his statements in his books with more hard facts than a PHd thesis.
If you are going to take on Buchanan, you had better be:
1) INCREDIBLY intelligent.
2) INCREDIBLY well-researched.
Even then, you do not stand much of a chance.
To dismiss him offhand as an "idiot," "moron" or whatever shows that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about this man.
I just wish he could get elected president.
All that being said, I do not agree with him on only one issue that I can think of: he is a bit overly-isolationist. Other than that, I'm with him all the way.
I stumbled across it in my university library (I know; I can't believe they haven't burned it yet either!) and the title caught my attention.
I too thought Buchanan was a raving nutjob before I read his book.
It turned out to be the single most influential book I have ever read in my life, at least on the topics of politics and social issues, and I do NOT say that lightly. I mean, it completely changed my way of thinking and looking at the world, specifically in regards to the left, where they came from, and what their mission truly is.
If you would actually read one of his books, particularly this one, you will see what an incredibly intelligent and learned man he is. I came away from the book with nothing but respect and admiration for the man. I also bought my own copy.
He documents and backs up his statements in his books with more hard facts than a PHd thesis.
If you are going to take on Buchanan, you had better be:
1) INCREDIBLY intelligent.
2) INCREDIBLY well-researched.
Even then, you do not stand much of a chance.
To dismiss him offhand as an "idiot," "moron" or whatever shows that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about this man.
I just wish he could get elected president.
All that being said, I do not agree with him on only one issue that I can think of: he is a bit overly-isolationist. Other than that, I'm with him all the way.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
moa,
Why read it, it is happenning every day
Why read it, it is happenning every day
Malone LaVeigh
Member
What do you mean WE, paleface?
HBK
member
If there were a rolling over laughing smiley, I would use it right now.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
OK, war for survival, and in your worldview, I'm on the "other side." That kind of thinking causes people to do really dumb things. Get a grip.
PATH
Member
Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser!
PATH
Member
I thought it was Adrian Zmed.HBK
member
When you position yourself in a way that aligns you with the enemy, you become a traitor and the enemy. When you put yourself in a position in which things that are good for our country are bad for you, you and become the enemy. When you put yourself in a position in which things that are bad for our country are good for you, you become the enemy. That's precisely what liberals have done. We've been too soft on treason for too long, to the point that we don't call it what it is. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Joe Demko
Member
Why do I get the impression that you were hyperventilating as you posted this?
HBK
member
Probably your imagination. You imagine me yelling it in one big run-on sentence when I'm actually just stating facts.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
Why can Art say, "It's all about oil." and not get all the conservatives' boots up his butt?
And, BTW, monster Roosevelt was secretly and illegally sending supplies to Western Europe way before Pearl or Hitler's war declaration.
MR
agricola
Member
surely, if FDR is "monster Roosevelt", then Hitler deserves a moniker approproate to someone who is directly responsible for the deaths of nearly twenty million people?
edit: mercedes, you are right to point out that Art's comments have gone largely unchallenged from the conservatives here. Its probably because, after seeing the rest of the justification (WMD breaches rather than WMD, "sponsored terrorism" reduced to a very tenuous link to WTC 1993 and a mural) the only ground left is that which the anti-war people have been occupying.
though, many of the true libertarians here have been spot on in their views.
Also, IIRC, the US Navy was convoying shipping in 1941 before the US entry into WWII, and activily engaged in hunting German U-boats. An American destroyer was sunk by a U-boat after itself was attacked by the destroyer.
I am quite sure the US Navy would not have been hunting U-boats without FDRs approval, and probably direction. This was a provacation that Hitler did not fall for.
Neither Germany or the US declared war as a result of this state of events on the high seas.
I am quite sure the US Navy would not have been hunting U-boats without FDRs approval, and probably direction. This was a provacation that Hitler did not fall for.
Neither Germany or the US declared war as a result of this state of events on the high seas.
ninenot
Member
More and more intelligent posts surface as time goes on.
Yes, PJBuchanan is VERY smart, DrJones; and his "Death of the West" is a landmark book, which libertarians will have a hard time with because PJB pretty much places Christianity at the center of "the West."
Roosevelt had good reasons to drag the US into war--not least, to defend our large stake in Great Britain--the dollars, that is. Would Hitler have attempted to take the US? Perhaps. But he would have been occupied for a LONG time with Russia and Eastern Europe--both difficult to 'pacify.'
Finally, as to Iraq: I am comfortable that Saddam had enough involvement in attacks on the USA (WTC, OKC, or others) that we were justified in going after him. Further, it's VERY clear that Iraq will be a handy projection-of-power base in the future. And, yes, they have a LOT of oil.
But "to institute Democracy?" Get serious.
Yes, PJBuchanan is VERY smart, DrJones; and his "Death of the West" is a landmark book, which libertarians will have a hard time with because PJB pretty much places Christianity at the center of "the West."
Roosevelt had good reasons to drag the US into war--not least, to defend our large stake in Great Britain--the dollars, that is. Would Hitler have attempted to take the US? Perhaps. But he would have been occupied for a LONG time with Russia and Eastern Europe--both difficult to 'pacify.'
Finally, as to Iraq: I am comfortable that Saddam had enough involvement in attacks on the USA (WTC, OKC, or others) that we were justified in going after him. Further, it's VERY clear that Iraq will be a handy projection-of-power base in the future. And, yes, they have a LOT of oil.
But "to institute Democracy?" Get serious.
- Status