Conservative View of War on Middle East

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Genji, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    Arch US conservative Pat Buchanan explains in his American Conservative magazine real conservative views about US policy and Israeli spin in the volatile MidEast.
    Those championing war and condemning those opposed to foreign adventurism are labeled terrorist apologists and weak.
    Read how conservatism's main batter sees the US fighting for Israel's security rather than our own.
    Before we start another war maybe we should pay for the 1st ones.
    Interesting article. There was a time Buchanan sounded like a fanatic. Now he sounds reasonable. A scary example of how so called American conservatives have abandoned conservative principles and are sending OUR young to die in the name of Israel's security.


    Hysteria at Herzliya
    By Patrick J. Buchanan
    Tuesday, January 30, 2007

    When Congress finally decides on just the right language for its "non-binding resolution" deploring Bush's leadership in this war, it might consider a resolution to keep us out of the next one.
    For America is on a collision course with an Iran of 70 million, and the folks who stampeded us into Iraq are firing pistols in the air again.
    At the annual Herzliya Conference, U.S. presidential aspirants, neoconservatives and Israeli hawks were all invoking the Holocaust and warning of the annihilation of the Jews.
    Israel's "Bibi" Netanyahu, who compares Iran's Ahmadinejad to Hitler, said: "The world that didn't stop the Holocaust last time can stop it this time. ... Who will lead the effort against genocide if not us? The world will not stand up on behalf of the Jews if the Jews do not stand up on behalf of the world."
    Said former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz: "Iran is the heart of the problem in the Middle East. It is the most urgent threat facing the world, and needs to be dealt with before it's too late." After meeting with the Department of State's Nicholas Burns, Mofaz called 2007 "a year of decision."
    Richard Perle assured the conference that Bush will attack Iran rather than see it acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. Newt Gingrich also brought his soothing touch to the proceedings: "(C)itizens who do not wake up every morning and think about possible catastrophic civilian casualties are deluding themselves.
    "Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... I'll repeat it. Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany and more determined than the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get.
    "If we knew that tomorrow morning we would lose Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, what would we do to stop it? If we knew that we would tomorrow lose Boston, San Francisco or Atlanta, what would we do?"
    Mitt Romney agreed. Ahmadinejad's Iran is more dangerous than Khrushchev's Soviet Union, which put missiles in Cuba. For the Soviets "were never suicidal. Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. That assumption cannot be made to an irrational regime (Iran) that celebrates martyrdom."
    Ehud Olmert, mired in scandal, his popularity in the tank after the Lebanon fiasco, was as hawkish as Bibi: "The Jewish people, with the scars of the Holocaust fresh on its body, cannot afford to let itself face the threat of annihilation once again. ... We will stand up against nuclear threats and even prevent them."
    Came then U.S. peace candidate John Edwards. Keeping Iran from nuclear weapons "is the greatest challenge of our generation. ... To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. ... Let me reiterate -- all options."
    Wrote the Financial Times' Philip Stephens of Herzliya, "I gave up counting the times I heard the words 'existential threat' to describe Iran's nuclear program capability."
    A few weeks back, according to UPI's Arnaud De Borchgrave, Netanyahu declared that Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the United States -- the goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."
    Israel's war is to be sold as America's war.
    The project is underway. According to Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor of the Guardian, Israeli media are reporting that the assignment to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran has been given to Meir Dagan, head of Mossad.
    Listening to the war talk, Gen. Wesley Clark exploded to Arianna Huffington: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office-seekers."
    The former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was ordered out of ranks and dressed down by Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. But Matt Yglesias of American Prospect, himself Jewish, says Clark spoke truth: "(I)t's true that major Jewish organizations are pushing this country into war with Iran."
    Yet is the hysteria at Herzliya justified? Consider:
    Not once since its 1979 revolution has Iran started a war. In any war with America, or Israel with its hundreds of nuclear weapons, Iran would not be annihilating anyone. Iran would be risking annihilation.
    Not only has Iran no nukes, the Guardian reported yesterday, "Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium ... are in chaos." That centrifuge facility at Natanz is "archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production."
    There is no need for war. Yet, Israelis, neocons and their agents of influence are trying to whip us into one. Senators who are seeking absolution for having voted to take us into Iraq ought to be confronted and asked just what they are doing to keep us out of a war in Iran.


    Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    There aren't even enough Jews in Israel to make it a 'second' holocaust.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    But the US government and it's Israel Lobby masters are selling another full scale trillion dollar losing war against yet another one of Israel's enemies, like Iraq was. Just amazing to see us being led down the same path toward another quagmire.
    Conservatives and libertarians are opposed to Bush's wars. I wonder why this site ended up with Israeli hawks and neocon Israel Lobby cheerleaders.
    I knew if I posted an article from a Left publication I would be summarily dismissed. So we'll see how fast the SF armchair warrior goon squad dismisses the Jesus of U.S. Conservatism.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    If ONE nuke went off in NYC, according to Gingrich's rhetoric, it'd be a second holocaust.

    Yet where's the Congressional level push for more security in NYC? A remote Alaskan town got something like 30,000 dollars to spend on public spy cameras.
    The fuck...?
     
  8. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    We're blowing all our resources in Bush's wars. We are more vulnerable now than ever. With hundreds of millions of more enemies. And Jerusalem and the neocons want to further bankrupt our country to dive into another war. Where is their confidence coming from? Any US victories since WW2??
    The very best thing that could happen for Israel and the neocon Republicans is another terrorist attack on US soil. They think invading more of their countries will prevent that. Actually the opposite is true, and it will prove itself to be soon enough.
     
  9. Redefine91 I piss excellence Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    848
    Yeah the first thing Israel needs is its only ally and main weapons supplier to be preoccupied with it's own security.

    and yes there have been some victories since ww2. I believe that we did pretty good in the Gulf war.
     
  10. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    Korea was a standoff. Vietnam was a defeat. Somalia was a defeat. Lebanon was a defeat. The Gulf War gave Kuwait back to the emir's, who jetted off to St. Tropez while we gave them their stolen emirate back. If that's victory the cake can't be that big!
    Our Security is a different matter than Israel's security. Iraq was a threat to Israel, not the US. Iran is a threat to Israel, not the US. Aren't you embarrassed being the bodyguard for an apartheid rogue state living on US welfare? I am and so are conservatives and liberatarians, liberals and Leftists. Too bad the armchair chickenhawks aren't forced to pay for their warmongering.
     
  11. Redefine91 I piss excellence Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    848
    I have no feelings of embrassment for helping israel out.

    They are surrounded by people who do not believe they have the right to exist. So the fact that we are hooking them up with means of defense makes me proud to be american. Shows we still have a sense of duty the countries less fourtunate than us.

    Plus, we're helping a country whose dominant race has been taking it in the ass for thousands of years, to put it poetically.
     
  12. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    I just don't think it's worth the billions in aid, being tied to a Jewish supremacist state in the Arab ME and them using our weaponry. Our soldiers dying to keep them safe. What do we get in return? Debt and coffins. Jews aren't a poor suffering people. In WW2 things were bad for Euro Jews. They aren't suffering and poor now.
    US military to defend the USA. We've already paid a hefty price financing Jewish war on Arabs. 9/11 for one. Our support for the bastard state of Israel brought terror to our shores. But we attack Israel's greatest threat Iraq instead of Republican Saudi Arabia.
    Are you suiting up to fight for Israel yet?
    Disregard the last remark. I just saw your picture! You're young! And....HOT!
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2007
  13. Redefine91 I piss excellence Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    848
    I do believe Jews are targeted more than any other people in the ME.

    And the Jews are entitled to their holy city.

    and taking terrorist attacks for supporting Israel? It's just a sad part of being the strongest nation on Earth. It is our obligation to help those in need. And we do.
     
  14. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    Could it be because the entire region is Arab and most of Israel's population originated in central Europe and Russia? Jerusalem is a holy city to all 3 Abrahamic faiths.
    We won't be the strongest nation on Earth much longer, if we really are strong. Failing to even secure one town in Iraq in 5 years says something.
     
  15. Redefine91 I piss excellence Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    848
    Jerusalem is the 3rd holiest city to Muslims, am I correct?

    We can't secure Iraq because of tactics not strength.

    If we used all availble power, spared no one, and just went out on a full scale assault Iraq would be sellling big macs in 3 months. But we use very weak battle strategies. Our compassion is viewed as weakness and that is an advantage to our savage blood thirsty heartless enemies.
     
  16. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    True. Mecca is Islam's most holy city. Christianity would be Nazareth or the Vatican.
    Why would you want to force another country to abandon it's ancient culture and become a tacky copy of the US? We would have to kill millions and demolish the entire nation to force them under America's corporate umbrella. For what? We want infrastructure, civilian support and working oil facilities. Not a wasteland that erases the whole reason we went in there in the 1st place.
    The USSR used tactics that you seem to support in Afghanistan against US backed mujahadeen jihadists. They were defeated. Now WE are fighting the jihadists.
    Remember what Princess Leia said in Star Wars One? "The tighter your grip Lord Vader the more that will slip through your fingers." We can't and shouldn't become as brutal as Pol Pot or Stalin or Hitler to "win" a war where we are not wanted, for nothing.
     
  17. Redefine91 I piss excellence Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    848
    If we used ruthless tactics, as our enemies have .

    And Our Jihaddists are NOT backed by the worlds strongest country as they were against the Russians. Big difference.


    No contest. And I meant to say that democracy would arrive fast in Iraq.
     
  18. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    At the cost of millions of civilians. Then you have no Iraqi support. We went there to "save" them from Saddam and bring freeeeedom and shit. Killing them all won't make us allies.
    So we are fighting an enemy with no superpower support and we STILL can't secure a single Iraqi town, let alone the capital city. Says we are losing and losing badly. At least the Soviets were fighting new US weapons! We do not have that excuse.
     
  19. Redefine91 I piss excellence Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    848
    we are fighting a tactic that no training can stop.


    Cowardly, fearful Terrorists using child shields and attacking civilians to soldiers 10:1
     
  20. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    US bombs and soldiers have killed lots of Iraqi children. Alot more than the Iraqi rebels. If you are fighting a superpower, trying to get him out of your country and you have no army what do you do? If the Iraqis were occupying the US would you not fight them? With anything you could? By any means necessary? That's how we liberated ourselves from the British. How the Jews kicked Britain out of Palestine. If you have no military you have no choice but to fight with whatever you can.
    Not all of the rebels are jihadists. Many are Iraqis that want their country back and the puppet government out.
     
  21. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    Absolutely nothing cowardly about facing a superpower and inflicting as much damage as possible. Of course they are with civilians! They ARE civilians. Where can the rebels go? To their military base?? Cowards are Americans that were scared of a little dictator like Saddam. Cowards are Americans that are afraid of non nuclear Iran!
     
  22. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    US fraud and waste. This war was about spoon feeding defense contractors for donating to Bush's re-election.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16895294/
    IMAGINE the furor if a Democratic president allowed this to happen!
     
  23. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    If actually true, it's most likely because our schools have been turning out more id-10-t errors than ever before.

    Hey, how's that been working out for you lately?

    Been hired for one of them high-paying executive positions where your strings are pulled by some damnable, overlord mind-controlling jooz?

    Great defense mechanism ya got wurk'n.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2007

Share This Page