Pat Buchanan rails against the war, charges President lied

Status
Not open for further replies.
(ninenot) 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.

What was the connection between Hussein and Tim McVeigh, again?

MR :confused:
 
There's a VERY persistent reporter on this OKC thing who insists that McVeigh had a third accomplice--an Iraqi military officer.

Between that and the Iraq location of the B-727 training site, and the likelihood that SH had provided money and/or passports--etc., I will give GWB the benefit of the doubt--but barely.

HAVING SAID THAT, I agree with Stratfor intelligence newsletter that GWB has been utterly unable to articulate a clear, consistent, and compelling rationale for the presence of the US in Iraq. He started out by declaring that SH was part of the terrorism problem and had WMD. Then, when no WMD's showed up, his justification was 'terror and brutality.' Well--that's true, too. NOW he's trying to sell us on some "establish Democracy" routine. Muslims don't like democracy. Never have, never will.

If he'd just tell the truth: We NEED a base in the Middle East--that would be fine with me.

Ah, well.
 
Malone, yeah, the world supply of oil is finite. I've seen no reason not to believe in Hubbert's Pimple*, even if the dates might be a bit off. There is reason to believe, however, that vast amounts of oil underlie areas around the Black Sea and in places like Kazakhstan.

As we develop alternative energy sources, we are yet needful of oil. Even if it's not used in transportation or in the production of energy, we still need the consumer products which derive from the petrochemical industry--such as the plastics in our myriad communications devices. Computers or cell phones, anyone?

There's no magic. Realpolitik sez that nations will do what nations gotta do in order to survive. The perceptions of the leadership come into play, here, of course, but whether Kerryite or Bushie, any administration will continue to follow the path that helps maintain our economy--and that means oil.

"Nations don't have friends; they have interests." is a fact. Realpolitik has no morals. It is oriented to survival--which leads, then to the question whether survival is a moral imperative. :)

Stipulate we'll be well on the downtrend of Hubbert's Pimple in (likely) thirty years. Is it not in our national interest to be in a physical position to have strong influence in the greatest oil-producing areas? And as to cost, is it not better to be in a country like Iraq than on the high seas with lesser capability but higher costs? I submit that force projection from bases in Iraq will cost less than force projections from the U.S., the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean.

Note that I'm not assigning "good" or "bad" or moral values in general to any of these comments, here and earlier. National survival is more important to national leaders than winning football games was to Lombardi.

Art

* Hubbert's Pimple: M. King Hubbert was a petroleum geologist with the USGS. Around 1950 he charted his idea of the world's usage of fossil fuels, in the form of a graph. It showed a slight but steady rise from the first usage of peat and coal, adding oil after the first discoveries in the US, to a steep rise beginning in the late 1930s and peaking around 2010. The decline is as steep as the rise. The decline in use results from the decline in availability.
 
Why can Art say, "It's all about oil." and not get all the conservatives' boots up his butt?

Because Mr. Eatman is putting it in PERSPECTIVE. If you follow the trail or reasons, oil is one of the reasons, but not the only reason. But for the oil, we would have no real interest in the sand box. But it is not merely oil, but energy, which allows our quality of life. Our dependence on the OIL has the US and the West in the sights of Islamic zealots.

So the link to oil is complicated. If you cook it down and state that it is a "War for Oil" then you are oversimplifying and we throw the BS flag. It is about or way of life and our comfort. In a perfect world we could merely exchange money for oil. But "realpolitik" enters the fray.
 
RealGun has pinpointed the reason we are in Iraq, Oil!

The WOT is a nice distraction from the realty that the World runs on Oil and any interruption to the supply would prove disastrous to not only the U.S. economy but that of the world as well.

What GWB & co. are trying to accomplish is the establishment of a Western style.Democracy in the region to act as a warning to the numerous Principalities and Sheikdoms whose very existence is threatened by the possibility that they could be next

Saddam needed taking out, and I only wish he had been sent to take a dirt nap. As long as he draws breath, he will foster terrorism and do all in his power to disrupt the free worlds economic stability. High up in his arsenal ofweapons was his ability to disrupt the Worlds Oil supply

So, IMO if we are going to project our power in the World community, the stabilization of Oil supplies is a perfectly valid reason.
 
Whatever you say, T.J. Hooker...
I suppost that's some pop culture reference. I don't watch enough TV, obviously.
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.
And I guess you and bubba get to decide what's "good for our country." Well, there are a few of us out here that think that kind of alleged thought is exactly what's bad for our country, not to mention the rest of humanity.
There's no magic. Realpolitik sez that nations will do what nations gotta do in order to survive. The perceptions of the leadership come into play, here, of course, but whether Kerryite or Bushie, any administration will continue to follow the path that helps maintain our economy--and that means oil.
That's an argument any junky would grasp in a heartbeat. Look up the definition of "tragedy." Yes, we are locked into a seemingly inexorable struggle for the last of the cheap oil. The smart money is that we'll go down the imperial path. Just remember, in the long run empire has it's worst effect on the imperial country itself.
 
Typical leftist response. Thank God there's just a few of you that want to turn our country into a socialist hellhole. You can't even understand a simple concept like lining up against the very nation you live in to favor an enemy of that nation is a bad thing. :rolleyes:
 
I'll protect myself, thank you very much. I don't mean to be repetitive or anything, but since you didn't get the point, "Thank God there's just a few of you that want to turn our country into a socialist hellhole. You can't even understand a simple concept like lining up against the very nation you live in to favor an enemy of that nation is a bad thing."
 
No Bias

First let me start off by saying ... after 9/11 I was ready to go to battle with anyone or everyone that had something to do with the attacks. Bin Laden was named the mastermind and three years later American casualties are nearing 4,000 deaths (3,000 from NYC and Pentgaon and over 600 from the war in Iraq) and there is no Bin Laden in sight.

I want Bin Laden ... but over the course of time ... somehow our attention shifted to going after Saddam ... a man who once was backed by our very own government ... (circa 1980 picture with Donald Rumsfeld calling him an ally)

I remember clearly the president saying that Iraq was an imminent threat to our society ... but he has since stated that he never said the word "imminent threat." Please.

#2 I remember Gen. Powell outlining all of these Weapon of Mass Destruction (lol) locations ... well its been over a year, where are they?
But here is the kicker ... don't all countries have wMD's ... I know darn sure America does ... being that we are the only country to drop an Atomic bomb on another country ...

Am I Bush bashing ... maybe I am ... only because I find the guy arrogant.

But is Kerry the guy to do the job? I personally do not think so ...

I'm tired of all you people out there (u know who you are) that can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. It is possible to be against the war and support our troops. And being that this very nation was built on dissent I find it equally ridiculous for people to be upset that the PEOPLE are questioning the presidents actions and holding him accountable. Doesn't he work for us? Didn't we elect him?

So for all of you people out there, stop wrapping yourselves in the American flag just because there is dissent. Dissent sparks key debate, which leads to alternate plan of actions.
 
It's only a LITTLE ironic that PJBuchanan's first public beating was administered after he re-affirmed that "a nation does not have friends, it has interests."

That was immediately siezed by the Amen Corner and it was determined that PJB was anti-Semitic, because he had used that phrase as part of an overall rationale to disconnect what seemed to be an iron linkage between the US and Israel.

PJB claimed that in fact, the US government was not necessarily acting "in the interests" of the USA by linking itself so closely to Israel, and further, that such linkage was eventually going to create trouble for the US with the Arabs.

Well, PJB postulated that back in 1990 or so. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
 
Dissent sparks key debate, which leads to alternate plan of actions.

We had the debate over 2 years ago. We are now committed. The new "national debate" appears to be aiding the enemy conbatants. They appear to be increasing attacks on our troops because they think America will cut and run. They think America will lose its resolve.

Even Malone used to say in his sig line "Get the job done, then throw the ba$***** out" (or something to that effect). That is a responsible means of communicating dissent. With freedom (of expression) comes responsibilities. If I told you that everytime you spoke publically against the war, one more soldier or marine would die, would you stop then? sKerry has moderated his language now to say that he will stay the course and continue the WOT AND Iraq (if you do not consider Iraq to be in the WOT). I applaud him for that.


HBK,
Please give Malone some slack. He is not as unpatriotic as you may think. Give some of these posters time before branding them as traitors. :eek: What fun would this be if we all had groupthink?
 
If I told you that everytime you spoke publically against the war, one more soldier or marine would die, would you stop then?

No, because such a statement would be as false as it would be ludicrous.

The president and his polices are not and should not be immune to criticism just because there is a war on. The Bush team have long acted as if they knew something the rest of us didn't. Turns out they were making it up as they go along, buggering the intelligence process, smearing their opponents, and have generally shown themselves to be inept at invading and occupying a country.

"It's now widely accepted that the administration 'failed dismally to prepare for the security and nation-building missions in Iraq,' to quote Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies - not heretofore known as a Bush basher. Just as experts on peacekeeping predicted before the war, the invading force was grossly inadequate to maintain postwar security. And this problem was compounded by a chain of blunders: doing nothing to stop the postwar looting, disbanding the Iraqi Army, canceling local elections, appointing an interim council dominated by exiles with no political base and excluding important domestic groups." Paul Krugman
 

Attachments

  • oliphant.gif
    oliphant.gif
    27.9 KB · Views: 9
The point is that Bush lied to us and got us into a mess that is going to cost a lot of lives and money to get us out of. I do hope there is a chance of finishing the job, but am losing confidence in it. At some point, it might be necessary to just get the hell out. But at any rate, there ought to be a political cost for this mess. I wish the Democrats would nominate anybody but Kerry.
 
I am starting to see some blunders manifested and need to be corrected ASAP (actually yesterday is not soon enough). I support the action, but we are starting to compromise and negotiate with people that really have no power. We must stay on a war footing until, and if, power can be handed over to elected Iraqis. I do not believe that it is viable to pull out.
 
I'm getting a bit fed up with people saying something they believe to be fact and then when it's shown to be wrong, they're called a liar.

It's one thing to be remiss in getting more information from other sources, and Bush obviously blew it on this issue. That's a free fire zone, IMO.

As far as statements about WMDs, Candidate Kerry is as guilty as President Bush. You can include many other bigwigs in Congress, of both parties, as well. The whole atmosphere within the Beltway was, "He's got WMDs!" Now, all those spouters are in the "Me no Alamo, me no Goliad!" mode, as though they'd never said a word.

As far as support for Al Qaida, there are still bits and pieces of information coming to light in the various media which show at least modest connections between them and the Iraqis.

Art

All y'all need to cool it a bit in your phrasings. Too much that's at best minor personal attacks. Think twice, post once. Otherwise, think "padlock".
 
The point is that Bush lied to us and got us into a mess that is going to cost a lot of lives and money to get us out of. I do hope there is a chance of finishing the job, but am losing confidence in it. At some point, it might be necessary to just get the hell out. But at any rate, there ought to be a political cost for this mess. I wish the Democrats would nominate anybody but Kerry.

I'm sorry that you would prefer wars to be neat, tidy, cheap, and bloodless, but they do not typically work out that way.

And more typical leftist verbal vomit: "Oh, how I wish some omnipotent being who happens to have all the right answers would come along and wave his magic wand! Lord knows Bush doesn't have the answers, nor does kerry, nor clinton, nor Bush Sr. nor......"

All complaints and nothing constructive. Like the spoiled brat who's never satisfied with anything.

Thanks for nothing.
 
Dr thanks for nothing:

Well, if you are going to so thoroughly misinterpret what I said (not tomention the gratuitous slurs), it's going to be hard for me to follow Art's advice. Omnipotent being? What are you sniffing? All I said is that there ought to be a political cost for misleading the public and Congress into an unnecessary war. I'm well aware wars aren't neat and tidy. That's why we should only get into one when there is a real and present danger. It's the admin that promised us the Iraqis would throw down their guns and greet us as liberators. It's those of us who opposed the war that knew it wouldn't be so neat and tidy.

HBK:

Apology accepted, and my apologies to you, sir.

Art:

There's just too much evidence to me that the admin did not play honest with the facts. I'm not going to get into finding sources at this point, because they've been rehashed enough. While I do think some in Congress were mislead by the admin, they should have questioned the dubious claims more, so I don't give them any more credit than Bush and Co.
 
We aren't fighting Iraqis in Iraq as much as we are fighting Syrians and Iranians in Iraq. This war was neccessary. Syria and Iran should be next. THe WMDs everyone is so ticked off about were most likely moved to Syria, where they will be handed out like candy to terrorist groups. We shouldn't handle Iraq with kid gloves either, we should pound Fallujah and Najaf into submission because all those people understand and respect is ugly, painful death. Any action that even smells a little like compassion and they take it as a weakness and ram it back down your throat at the first opportunity. Remember, their religion professes that it is okay to lie to nonbelievers. It is okay to make a truce when you are weak, then break it as soon as you're strong enough to do so. There is no diplomacy, no negotiations that will work with terrorists. If you think there aren't terrorists in Iraq and that Hussein didn't aid terrorists when he was in power, then you need to examine the situation more closely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top