Pat Buchannan loses his mind

gburner · September 6, 2004, 07:34 PM

While opining on the Sunday morning talkies, Pat Buchannan reiterated his stand that US policy in Iraq is a lost cause, has nothing to do with the 'war on terror', has taken away our resources needed to fight that war, that we are puppets in the battle for Zionist control in the mid east and that our 'colonialist' policies have inflamed 'the Arab street' against us. Buchannan wants us to cut our losses and run, hunkering down in Fortress America. Well, guess what Pat, the barbarians have already breached the walls.

I know that Unca Pat has been an isolationist and an anti semite for some time. However, his point of view totally ignores the obvious:
We didn't want this war, they did...they attacked us.
They declared war on us.
Arab children have been attending madrassas for years; schools which instill and incite hatred against westeners.
The 'arab street' has always been anti western to a great degree...in a world where you can't criticize your own country's rulers and policies, the west makes a convenient whipping boy.
Soldiers of the universal jihad against the great satan are here in our communities. They are targeting our schools, markets, places of worship and other areas where large amounts of citizens congregate. Somehow Buchannan thinks that if we just surrender, these threats will simply disappear. Time for a reality break. What happened in Russia in the past week can and will happen here, appeasement or not.

Quartus · September 6, 2004, 07:49 PM

"loses"? Wrong tense. He lost it a long time ago. He makes some good points from time to time, but his deficiencies outweigh his merits by a large margin.

... and I'd really like to see him in the Senate just to be a spoiler!

Christopher II · September 6, 2004, 08:21 PM

Iraq attacked us? When, exactly, did this happen?

- Chris

Don Gwinn · September 6, 2004, 09:47 PM

People who had been favored with an awful lot of help over the years by Saddam Hussein attacked us. And an awful lot of non-Iraqis are the ones actually fighting against us in Iraq.

Other than that, you and Pat Buchanan are correct. If we limit ourselves to carefully controlled and easily anticipated responses to each attack, while relying on our national borders to protect us, we should come through just fine. Depending on your definition of "fine," of course.

fallingblock · September 6, 2004, 09:54 PM

"Depending on your definition of "fine," of course"
*********************************************************

On the other hand, a bit of preemptive rearranging of the islamofanatics plans
might just be a good strategy.

In order to add value to that definition of "fine"

.

Sneevil · September 6, 2004, 09:54 PM

He may have a point. Was it Washington or Jefferson who said "Beware of foreign entanglements"? IMO, we involve ourselves militarily in too many places in the world, and many times for the wrong reasons. Inevitably, we wind up not being viewed as a "good member of the international community", whatever TF that means.

I would like to see us become more nationalistic and protective of our own borders, language and culture before engaging in international police work. YMMV.

Monkeyleg · September 6, 2004, 10:26 PM

The RNC hanged Pat Buchanan out to dry back in 2000. He considers himself an historian, and there are those who would agree with him.

In 2000, Buchanan said that it wasn't necessary for us to go to war with Germany, and that we would have been better off to wait for either Hitler or Stalin to win, and then attack the winner.

This line of thinking wasn't exactly provocative back in the early 1940's. Truman was also an isolationist, as were many other prominent leaders on both sides.

The RNC played "gotcha" with Buchanan, and won. He held the Christian Right, the Pro-Life lobby, and a number of other typically Republican constituencies. The RNC needed him gone. They got him "gone" by portraying him as a Hitler sympathizer.

Pat Buchanan isn't exactly a wet-behind-the-ears newcomer to politics. He's been around since the Reagan years. And I'm sure that he knows now and knew then that any remarks he made about US versus Nazi politics would be torn to shreds.

Buchanan knows he'll never be on the ballot. But he wants his issues to be a part of the Republican party platform.

That's his job, and he does it. Just like Jesse Jackson does for the Democrats.

Jamie Young · September 6, 2004, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Was it Washington or Jefferson who said "Beware of foreign entanglements"?

President Washington's farewell address.

LawDog · September 6, 2004, 11:09 PM

It had to be Washington, Jefferson was the one who declared war on the Barbary Pirates while Congress was out of session.

A four-year-long war is a "foreign entanglement" isn't it?

LawDog

fallingblock · September 6, 2004, 11:44 PM

Besides, it gave Stephen Decateur an opportunity to utter his famous quote:
"My Country, right or wrong."

And the world was a better place for it.

Long Path · September 6, 2004, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Pat Buchanan isn't exactly a wet-behind-the-ears newcomer to politics. He's been around since the Reagan years.

Considerably longer than that-- he was a chief speech-writer for Nixon.

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, isn't it? Just find the tack taken, and oppose it.

Who knows? Maybe Buchannan's right, and we should have just dug in here and pulled in our forces. But while he would be nodding and saying this was good and proper, plenty of other pundits, just as smart as him, would be screaming for action.

cool hand luke 22:36 · September 7, 2004, 02:00 AM

Newt tore him a new one on one of the Sunday morning talking heads shows.

The former speaker pointed out what kind of shape the world would be in today if the US followed Buchannon's advice and withdrew from the Middle East, i.e., the effects of a disruption in oil supplies, the effect of having Bin Laden in charge in Saudi Arabia, the fact that the Muslim radicals want to retake Spain as part of Islam's former territory, etc.

DLoken · September 7, 2004, 02:08 AM

"We didn't want this war, they did...they attacked us.
They declared war on us.
Arab children have been attending madrassas for years; schools which instill and incite hatred against westeners."

How many Iraqi hijackers were on the 9/11 flights? How many Iraqi people have attacked the United States?

You're confusing Islamic fundamentalists with a secular dictatorship (Well prior to us coming in and ****ing it up). I wish people would stop saying the same tired BS because it is well, getting goddamn tiring. Also stop with the Arab/Muslim stereotypes. A few terrorists surely represents a large portion of the world population

. Never mind that most muslims are peaceful people just like you and me. On the flip side of the coin your "facts" indicate that Religious Right nutjobs who bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors are representative of all Christians in the United States.

LAK · September 7, 2004, 04:25 AM

The only only flaw I can find in Mr. Buchanan's reasoning is his reference to the "war on terror"; there is no such thing. Perhaps he simply used the term so that people understood his context though.

gburner · September 7, 2004, 11:36 AM

DLoken,
Take a valium and give it a rest.
I really don't mind being confronted on ideas and positions that I post, but you put words in my mouth, then condemn me for saying them. I haven't stereotyped anyone nor did I imply that Arab terrorists represent anyone. A few questions for ya.....

Were we not attacked onour soil by Arab terrorists on 9/11 with a loss of over 3,000 lives?
Were we not attacked daily by Iraqi AAA fire over Iraq while enforcing a 'no fly zone'?
Didn't Sadaam's agents attempt to attack and assassinate George H.W. Bush?
Didn't Sadaam's government provide sanctuary for groups and individuals who had attacked Americans and western interests?
Didn't Sadaam's government supply monetary, material, logistical and administrative support to a wide variety of Arab terror groups for their attacks?
Didn't Arab terrorists attack the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, the World Trade Centers, etc.
Do you dispute that Arab schoolchildren are taught a murderous hatred for the west in general and America in particular; that it is glorious to attack your foes by blowing yourself up?
Do you dispute that the highest 'clerics' in the Islamic faith have called for jihad and the defeat of Zionists and infidels?
How many times do we need to be kicked in the hindpart before folks like you 'get it'?

I'm not confused in the slightest...Islamic fundamentalism and the secular government of Iraq worked hand in glove for over a decade. It was a marriage of convenience and in each others short term best interests to do so. The current war is the result of our ignorance of that marriage. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Sadaam had it comin' and so do the rest.
Wake up.

Quartus · September 7, 2004, 11:57 AM

One more question:

Where is the outpouring of condemnation for these terrorist attacks from all of the peaceful Muslims?

Real Gun · September 7, 2004, 12:00 PM

All fine. I am not saying I am for it or against it, but I do know that WMD was the short answer when we went into Iraq. There may be secondary motives for going in, but that is not what we were told. It was number one on Cheney's list from day one under "unfinished business". Please remember that it had nothing to do with 9/11. The wheels were already in motion. 9/11 made it politically convenient to pull the trigger. Saddam had already been violating probation for 10 years.

cool hand luke 22:36 · September 7, 2004, 12:00 PM

DLoken:

Quote:

Also stop with the Arab/Muslim stereotypes. A few terrorists surely represents a large portion of the world population

It's not a stereotype. In fact the Muslim terrorists do represent a large protion of the world's population. Al-Queda, and it's philosophy of islam-inspired genocide targeting Christians & westerners in general, has overwhelming public support in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Eqypt, the West Bank, etc.

There was dancing, literally dancing, in the Arab street the afternoon of 9/11/2001, as there will be after the next act of islam-inspired genocide carried out against Americans.

FirstFreedom · September 7, 2004, 12:10 PM

Not really gun related, so I won't elaborate too much, but Pat hit the nail on the dead nuts head with his statements on McLaughlin Sunday. Gburner, the fundamental point that you're entirely missing is that what you say is generally true - problem is, it ain't got a single, solitary thing to to with the country of IRAQ when Saddam was in firm control of his crazy towelheads - and the HMFIC with the weapons didn't give a rip about Islam or spreading it. Saddam's Iraq did not in any way, shape or form equal terrorism.

grampster · September 7, 2004, 12:14 PM

Regarding where are the moderate Islamists?

1. What media would publish and promote a moderate muslim viewpoint?

2. What moderate muslim would risk making themselves a target of the well entrenched Wahabbist extremist?

3. Many mosques in this country are controlled by the exteme Wahabbist sect, even tho many if not most American proponents of Islam are moderate or peaceful.

IMHO most proponents of Islam are victimized by the radicals as much as the rest of the world is. That is why the Patriot Act seems to be of value on the domestic front and a well funded focused intelligence community is needed around the world. The mopes need to be identified and rounded up or killed, preferrably the later.

Don Gwinn · September 7, 2004, 12:16 PM

Stephen Ambrose notes in his book on the transcontinental railroad that travel and communication changed more between the time of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln than it did between the times of Napoleon and Julius Caesar (at least overland.) It is entirely possible that Washington was right in the 18th century, but has ceased to be right in the 21st.

Isolation used to stop viruses, too, but ask any epidemiologist whether the CDC is watching Africa.

Quartus · September 7, 2004, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Regarding where are the moderate Islamists?

1. What media would publish and promote a moderate muslim viewpoint?

Any of them. They are in love with the idea of 'moderate Muslims'. They would trumpet any such announcements to the high heavens.

Quote:

2. What moderate muslim would risk making themselves a target of the well entrenched Wahabbist extremist?

Now, THERE's a good question. Speaking up against the extremists - even here in America, isn't safe.

So where's the courage?

Handy · September 7, 2004, 12:49 PM

The good citizens of Saudi Arabia do alot more to support Al Quaida than Iraq ever did (Saddam being hated by Osama).

And claiming that Iraq fits into the terrorist picture because Al Quaida showed up after we invaded is logically bankrupt. Our soldiers have a much harder time being targets of Muslim terror when they aren't standing in a Arab war zone.

War on Terror. War in Iraq. Two seperate things.

LawDog · September 7, 2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

One more question:

Where is the outpouring of condemnation for these terrorist attacks from all of the peaceful Muslims?

I don't know what irritates me more: 1)That this question gets asked, for instance over at THR, at which time someone (like Marko Kloos) digs up a wagon-load of links to published condemnations from Muslims, and next thing I know the questions gets asked again; or

2)That the person asking this question (yet again) can't find www.google.com or www.teoma.com, can't input 'muslim' + 'terror' + 'condemnation', and/or can't read the outpourings of Muslim condemnations for themselves.

So. In the interests of answering the damned question AGAIN, I went to www.google.com, input 'muslim condemnation of terrorism' and got 47,400 hits. Some of which (yet again) I herein post for general enlightenment.

9/11 condemnations:
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html
http://www.al-islam.org/dilp_statement.html
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Russian school takeover:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...1595D1A4F5.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3628836.stm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...297664,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

Nicholas Berg:
http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog...lah/008824.php
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=30274
http://www.islam-online.net/English/...rticle08.shtml
http://www.islamonline.net/English/N...rticle03.shtml

Here are the "outpouring of condemnation for these terrorist attacks from all of the peaceful Muslims".

I trust this fully and completely answers the question, and I further trust that this question need not be asked here, or at THR, again.

LawDog

Handy · September 7, 2004, 01:01 PM

Even given the above list, why should the average "moderate Muslim" give a crap about big bad America getting picked on? They may find it distasteful, but it may not seem like a big deal compared with the Palestinian crisis. How many of you speak out against the misuse of power throughout the world? How many letters have you written about what's going on in Sudan?

This whole idea that the US is on some sort of higher plane of moral consciousness is horsehockey. We "do the right thing" when we feel like it, and turn a blind eye when it is inconvenient. We are only the "world's policemen" if policemen get to be selective about which neighborhoods they visit.

Don't expect Muslim people eeking out a living on the other side of the planet to go out of their way to worry about our problems.

September 6, 2004, 07:34 PM	#1
gburner Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2001 Location: at the intersection of naivete and cynicism Posts: 1,365	Pat Buchannan loses his mind While opining on the Sunday morning talkies, Pat Buchannan reiterated his stand that US policy in Iraq is a lost cause, has nothing to do with the 'war on terror', has taken away our resources needed to fight that war, that we are puppets in the battle for Zionist control in the mid east and that our 'colonialist' policies have inflamed 'the Arab street' against us. Buchannan wants us to cut our losses and run, hunkering down in Fortress America. Well, guess what Pat, the barbarians have already breached the walls. I know that Unca Pat has been an isolationist and an anti semite for some time. However, his point of view totally ignores the obvious: We didn't want this war, they did...they attacked us. They declared war on us. Arab children have been attending madrassas for years; schools which instill and incite hatred against westeners. The 'arab street' has always been anti western to a great degree...in a world where you can't criticize your own country's rulers and policies, the west makes a convenient whipping boy. Soldiers of the universal jihad against the great satan are here in our communities. They are targeting our schools, markets, places of worship and other areas where large amounts of citizens congregate. Somehow Buchannan thinks that if we just surrender, these threats will simply disappear. Time for a reality break. What happened in Russia in the past week can and will happen here, appeasement or not. __________________ 'You don't like guns? What other common household tools do you have an irrational loathing for?'

September 6, 2004, 07:49 PM	#2
Quartus Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,823	"loses"? Wrong tense. He lost it a long time ago. He makes some good points from time to time, but his deficiencies outweigh his merits by a large margin. ... and I'd really like to see him in the Senate just to be a spoiler! __________________ . Better to know what you don't know than to think you know what you don't know.

September 6, 2004, 08:21 PM	#3
Christopher II Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 1999 Location: Germantown, MD Posts: 2,349	Iraq attacked us? When, exactly, did this happen? - Chris __________________ "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." – Robert Heinlein "Contrary to popular belief, your vote does not matter, and you cannot make a difference." - Bob Murphy, "Picking Neither of Two Evils" My PGP Public Key

September 6, 2004, 09:47 PM	#4
Don Gwinn Staff Emeritus Join Date: March 9, 2000 Location: Virden, IL Posts: 5,917	People who had been favored with an awful lot of help over the years by Saddam Hussein attacked us. And an awful lot of non-Iraqis are the ones actually fighting against us in Iraq. Other than that, you and Pat Buchanan are correct. If we limit ourselves to carefully controlled and easily anticipated responses to each attack, while relying on our national borders to protect us, we should come through just fine. Depending on your definition of "fine," of course. __________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner

September 6, 2004, 09:54 PM	#5
fallingblock Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2002 Location: Trans-Pecos Texas & FNQ Posts: 144	Well, yes...... "Depending on your definition of "fine," of course" ********************************************************* On the other hand, a bit of preemptive rearranging of the islamofanatics plans might just be a good strategy. In order to add value to that definition of "fine" .

September 6, 2004, 09:54 PM	#6
Sneevil Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2000 Location: California Posts: 147	He may have a point. Was it Washington or Jefferson who said "Beware of foreign entanglements"? IMO, we involve ourselves militarily in too many places in the world, and many times for the wrong reasons. Inevitably, we wind up not being viewed as a "good member of the international community", whatever TF that means. I would like to see us become more nationalistic and protective of our own borders, language and culture before engaging in international police work. YMMV.

September 6, 2004, 10:26 PM	#7
Monkeyleg Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2000 Posts: 4,625	The RNC hanged Pat Buchanan out to dry back in 2000. He considers himself an historian, and there are those who would agree with him. In 2000, Buchanan said that it wasn't necessary for us to go to war with Germany, and that we would have been better off to wait for either Hitler or Stalin to win, and then attack the winner. This line of thinking wasn't exactly provocative back in the early 1940's. Truman was also an isolationist, as were many other prominent leaders on both sides. The RNC played "gotcha" with Buchanan, and won. He held the Christian Right, the Pro-Life lobby, and a number of other typically Republican constituencies. The RNC needed him gone. They got him "gone" by portraying him as a Hitler sympathizer. Pat Buchanan isn't exactly a wet-behind-the-ears newcomer to politics. He's been around since the Reagan years. And I'm sure that he knows now and knew then that any remarks he made about US versus Nazi politics would be torn to shreds. Buchanan knows he'll never be on the ballot. But he wants his issues to be a part of the Republican party platform. That's his job, and he does it. Just like Jesse Jackson does for the Democrats. __________________ ACOG Scopes, EOTech Sights, Crimson Trace, LensAndLasers

September 6, 2004, 11:09 PM	#9
LawDog Staff Emeritus Join Date: September 15, 1999 Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket? Posts: 4,194	It had to be Washington, Jefferson was the one who declared war on the Barbary Pirates while Congress was out of session. A four-year-long war is a "foreign entanglement" isn't it? LawDog __________________ "The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer." --The 13th Warrior Bona na Croin The LawDog Files

September 6, 2004, 11:44 PM	#10
fallingblock Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2002 Location: Trans-Pecos Texas & FNQ Posts: 144	Well, somebody had to deal with the Barbary Pirates.... Besides, it gave Stephen Decateur an opportunity to utter his famous quote: "My Country, right or wrong." And the world was a better place for it.

September 7, 2004, 02:00 AM	#12
cool hand luke 22:36 Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2004 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 768	Newt tore him a new one on one of the Sunday morning talking heads shows. The former speaker pointed out what kind of shape the world would be in today if the US followed Buchannon's advice and withdrew from the Middle East, i.e., the effects of a disruption in oil supplies, the effect of having Bin Laden in charge in Saudi Arabia, the fact that the Muslim radicals want to retake Spain as part of Islam's former territory, etc.

September 7, 2004, 02:08 AM	#13
DLoken Member Join Date: July 3, 2001 Posts: 64	"We didn't want this war, they did...they attacked us. They declared war on us. Arab children have been attending madrassas for years; schools which instill and incite hatred against westeners." How many Iraqi hijackers were on the 9/11 flights? How many Iraqi people have attacked the United States? You're confusing Islamic fundamentalists with a secular dictatorship (Well prior to us coming in and ****ing it up). I wish people would stop saying the same tired BS because it is well, getting goddamn tiring. Also stop with the Arab/Muslim stereotypes. A few terrorists surely represents a large portion of the world population . Never mind that most muslims are peaceful people just like you and me. On the flip side of the coin your "facts" indicate that Religious Right nutjobs who bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors are representative of all Christians in the United States.

September 7, 2004, 04:25 AM	#14
LAK Junior member Join Date: May 14, 2002 Posts: 2,251	The only only flaw I can find in Mr. Buchanan's reasoning is his reference to the "war on terror"; there is no such thing. Perhaps he simply used the term so that people understood his context though.

September 7, 2004, 11:36 AM	#15
gburner Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2001 Location: at the intersection of naivete and cynicism Posts: 1,365	DLoken, Take a valium and give it a rest. I really don't mind being confronted on ideas and positions that I post, but you put words in my mouth, then condemn me for saying them. I haven't stereotyped anyone nor did I imply that Arab terrorists represent anyone. A few questions for ya..... Were we not attacked onour soil by Arab terrorists on 9/11 with a loss of over 3,000 lives? Were we not attacked daily by Iraqi AAA fire over Iraq while enforcing a 'no fly zone'? Didn't Sadaam's agents attempt to attack and assassinate George H.W. Bush? Didn't Sadaam's government provide sanctuary for groups and individuals who had attacked Americans and western interests? Didn't Sadaam's government supply monetary, material, logistical and administrative support to a wide variety of Arab terror groups for their attacks? Didn't Arab terrorists attack the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, the World Trade Centers, etc. Do you dispute that Arab schoolchildren are taught a murderous hatred for the west in general and America in particular; that it is glorious to attack your foes by blowing yourself up? Do you dispute that the highest 'clerics' in the Islamic faith have called for jihad and the defeat of Zionists and infidels? How many times do we need to be kicked in the hindpart before folks like you 'get it'? I'm not confused in the slightest...Islamic fundamentalism and the secular government of Iraq worked hand in glove for over a decade. It was a marriage of convenience and in each others short term best interests to do so. The current war is the result of our ignorance of that marriage. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sadaam had it comin' and so do the rest. Wake up. __________________ 'You don't like guns? What other common household tools do you have an irrational loathing for?'

September 7, 2004, 11:57 AM	#16
Quartus Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,823	One more question: Where is the outpouring of condemnation for these terrorist attacks from all of the peaceful Muslims? __________________ . Better to know what you don't know than to think you know what you don't know.

September 7, 2004, 12:00 PM	#17
Real Gun Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: SC Posts: 2,743	All fine. I am not saying I am for it or against it, but I do know that WMD was the short answer when we went into Iraq. There may be secondary motives for going in, but that is not what we were told. It was number one on Cheney's list from day one under "unfinished business". Please remember that it had nothing to do with 9/11. The wheels were already in motion. 9/11 made it politically convenient to pull the trigger. Saddam had already been violating probation for 10 years.

September 7, 2004, 12:10 PM	#19
FirstFreedom Junior member Join Date: May 31, 2004 Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A. Posts: 12,451	Not really gun related, so I won't elaborate too much, but Pat hit the nail on the dead nuts head with his statements on McLaughlin Sunday. Gburner, the fundamental point that you're entirely missing is that what you say is generally true - problem is, it ain't got a single, solitary thing to to with the country of IRAQ when Saddam was in firm control of his crazy towelheads - and the HMFIC with the weapons didn't give a rip about Islam or spreading it. Saddam's Iraq did not in any way, shape or form equal terrorism.

September 7, 2004, 12:14 PM	#20
grampster Senior Member Join Date: October 15, 2001 Location: wilderness of west michigan Posts: 192	Regarding where are the moderate Islamists? 1. What media would publish and promote a moderate muslim viewpoint? 2. What moderate muslim would risk making themselves a target of the well entrenched Wahabbist extremist? 3. Many mosques in this country are controlled by the exteme Wahabbist sect, even tho many if not most American proponents of Islam are moderate or peaceful. IMHO most proponents of Islam are victimized by the radicals as much as the rest of the world is. That is why the Patriot Act seems to be of value on the domestic front and a well funded focused intelligence community is needed around the world. The mopes need to be identified and rounded up or killed, preferrably the later.

September 7, 2004, 12:16 PM	#21
Don Gwinn Staff Emeritus Join Date: March 9, 2000 Location: Virden, IL Posts: 5,917	Stephen Ambrose notes in his book on the transcontinental railroad that travel and communication changed more between the time of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln than it did between the times of Napoleon and Julius Caesar (at least overland.) It is entirely possible that Washington was right in the 18th century, but has ceased to be right in the 21st. Isolation used to stop viruses, too, but ask any epidemiologist whether the CDC is watching Africa. __________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner

September 7, 2004, 12:49 PM	#23
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	The good citizens of Saudi Arabia do alot more to support Al Quaida than Iraq ever did (Saddam being hated by Osama). And claiming that Iraq fits into the terrorist picture because Al Quaida showed up after we invaded is logically bankrupt. Our soldiers have a much harder time being targets of Muslim terror when they aren't standing in a Arab war zone. War on Terror. War in Iraq. Two seperate things.

September 7, 2004, 01:01 PM	#25
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	Even given the above list, why should the average "moderate Muslim" give a crap about big bad America getting picked on? They may find it distasteful, but it may not seem like a big deal compared with the Palestinian crisis. How many of you speak out against the misuse of power throughout the world? How many letters have you written about what's going on in Sudan? This whole idea that the US is on some sort of higher plane of moral consciousness is horsehockey. We "do the right thing" when we feel like it, and turn a blind eye when it is inconvenient. We are only the "world's policemen" if policemen get to be selective about which neighborhoods they visit. Don't expect Muslim people eeking out a living on the other side of the planet to go out of their way to worry about our problems.