Pat Buchanan chimes in...

Jason Henderson

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html[^] I'm not a big fan of how Israel is conducting itself, but I'm also not a big fan of anti-semetic* anti-jewish Arabs either. I really don't believe Bush is being controlled by these people like Pat does because I have not heard a valid alternative to war. I'd rather not go to war, but what do you do with Iraq, Iran, and NK? Just let them get as many WMDs as they want? Give me a good alternative to war and I will listen. BTW, inspections don't work unless the inspectees are cooperative. So give me a good alternative and I will reconsider my pro-war stance. * Arabs are Semites/Shemites (descendants of Shem). I'm pretty sure that's where the word comes from.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

Chris Losinger

You might find this shocking (as i do), but i almost always agree with what i read from Buchanan. Maybe I haven't read enough of him, but i don't see the rabid anti-left, anti-center and anti-human traits that I always hear him charged with. Instead, I see someone who is essentially isolationist - and that's something i strongly agree with. I think the US should get its nose out of the rest of the world's business. I really think it would help to reduce or even prevent the kind of anti-Americanism that creates 9/11s. To people who say that forruners hate the US because of our 'culture', 'wealth', or whatever and not because of our foreign policy, i point to western Europe, Japan and some other Asian countries (no offense to any i leave out, i don't know much about Africa). They are all extremely successful, cultural, wealthy and big on exporting their culture (especially by mid-east standards); yet the US is the one policing the world, even brazenly reworking parts of it as we see fit, maintaining our interests often at the expense of the people other countries and often to the enrichment of the leaders - and while that continues, while the US is consipicuously involved in the governance of other countries, we should expect the populations of those countries to blame us for many of their problems. I know some of you will say that I'm "anti-american" or a "terrorist" for thinking the US would be better off keeping it's fingers out of other countries' asses. I think the opposite is true. I think i'm being very patriotic and am arguing for something that will benefit the US in the long term. And if you think i'm being a "lefty, commie, liberal", i'll just remind you that i'm agreeing with Pat-fucking-Buchanan here. As for what I think we should do with Iraq... at this point, i'm pro-war (that's right, you read it here first). Not because think it's a good idea, but because it's simply inevitable. GWB has manufactured a world-wide crisis in order to get his neo-con world domination plans going (the plan is clearly outlined in many documents written by current chicken-hawk members of GWBs cabinet over the last 15 or 20 years, so please don't argue that one). I want the war to start and finish so that we can get into the consequences part. I want the grand scheme to fail; not at the cost of lives, i assure you; but i want the plan to fail and for the US to get back to walking softly. *edit* instead of "isolationist", i guess i prefer the term "anti-interventionalist". i don't want the US to s

Jason Henderson

Chris Losinger wrote: Instead, I see someone who is essentially isolationist - and that's something i strongly agree with. I think the US should get its nose out of the rest of the world's business. I really think it would help to reduce or even prevent the kind of anti-Americanism that creates 9/11s. I too, would rather see us butt out of other people's business. Let them all alone to govern themselves. Who cares if they're oppressed! Why should we fight and die for them only to be ridiculed by them later? The only problem I have with the isolationist argument is that if we go back to that way of thinking, we may end up with a very hostile Islamic super-state in the middle east that could threaten Europe and the rest of the western world. With today's technology, anyone anywhere can threaten the US. I don't think we can go back to being isolationists in the strictest sense of the word. However, I do think we can keep open trade and diplomatic agreements with all countries without regard to their political/economic systems. As long as they don't threaten us, we would essentially leave them alone. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

Chris Losinger

Jason Henderson wrote: However, I do think we can keep open trade and diplomatic agreements with all countries without regard to their political/economic systems. As long as they don't threaten us, we would essentially leave them alone. i agree. (and don't think for a second that you're tricking me into the "Iraq's a threat" conversation :) ) -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Jason Henderson

I think we've started down this road and there's no turning back. Maybe there will be another fork a few miles ahead...

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

Lost User

The seeds of the culture clash, and dominance is already sown. We have to just wait and see what results it brings. I hope it does not become a case of "victory of the most fanatical". GWB 's language does not help, whatever his agenda is. He definitely needs to get a better speech writer. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

Mike Gaskey

Chris Losinger wrote: You might find this shocking .......... Well done. Mike

Mike Gaskey

Jason Henderson wrote: I too, would rather see us...... Well done - good discussion between you two. Mike

Lost User

Mike Gaskey wrote: Well done. Rare Mike Mullikin :beer:

Times change, politicians don't. - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe - Soapbox 10/03/2003

Alvaro Mendez

Jason Henderson wrote: I too, would rather see us butt out of other people's business. Let them all alone to govern themselves. Who cares if they're oppressed! Why should we fight and die for them only to be ridiculed by them later? See, I have a problem with this. This is the typical attitude of someone who's never lived in an oppressed society. Who cares if they're oppressed! It's understandable, actually; you've never lived it so you haven't felt what it's like. You think you know what "oppressed" means, and maybe even you've tried to imagine what it's like, but it's not nearly the same as living it, day after day. So, who cares... Well, I care. And there are many Americans who also care because we ourselves, or our parents, have been lucky to escape from such regimes. Just like there are many who care about people dying in foreign countries from starvation and disease, I care about people suffering the injustices of totalitarian regimes. And I applaud any action this government takes to put an end to such regimes. Unfortunately I don't much like the way it's being handled -- where on one side "Saddam must disarm or we will disarm him", and on the other there's this talk about regime change. So which is it? I wish we would just say, "Look, we don't like Saddam's regime, and we want him to leave or we'll take him out by force." I mean, I may be wrong, but if weapons were really our only concern, then there wouldn't be a need to also change the regime. However, as long as the end result is that we're able to free the Iraqis from Saddam's claws and bring freedom and properity to Iraq, with minimal loss of life, then it's fine. I hope it happens, and I hope it's soon. Regards, Alvaro

Quitters never win. Winners never quit. But those who never win and never quit are idiots. -- despair.com

Chris Losinger

Alvaro Mendez wrote: So which is it? it's regime change. it's always been about regime change. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Jason Henderson

Alvaro Mendez wrote: This is the typical attitude of someone who's never lived in an oppressed society. You're right. I shouldn't say that I don't care, because I think I do. I would rather all people lived in the relative peace that we do here in the U.S. I don't know, maybe we're going about it the wrong way. I hate to see Americans die and then be unappreciated for what they did a few years later (France). Perhaps we should openly denounce regimes we don't like and openly support opposition groups in those regimes instead of liberating them all ourselves. Maybe we should do what the French did for us so long ago. Although they didn't do it because they believed in the ideals of our fore fathers (they did it because they hated the English), we would do it because of those ideals. If those opposition groups wanted our direct help, they could declare independence and sign an alliance with us. Then I wouldn't have any problem with sending troops. We definitely need to muster the Kurds and other opposition groups in Iraq to do most of the fighting for us (Afghanistan is a good example). The same should happen in Cuba, Iran, NK, Palestine, etc, etc. This would bring me in with 110% backing for the war instead of 85-90%.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile

Jason Henderson

I agree. That's why we should not have gotten the UN involved. Powell probably thought we could get enough support to go back in by using Iraq's lack of cooperation since the Gulf War. It makes since, but the UN is not about whats best for the world, its all about how each ountry can use it to their own advantage. The UN is an utter failure, imo.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

articles profile