Insane, bedwetting liberal opposed to war

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
Yes, it's that insane, bedwetting liberal Patrick J. Buchanan:

Whose War?

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War.

What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.

Though we have said repeatedly that we admire much of what this president has done, he will not deserve re-election if he does not jettison the neoconservatives’ agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected to preserve and protect.
 
Is it possible for you to carry on a debate about a political issue with a gentlemanly polemic? Seems to me that the genuis of a democracy is the freedom not to spout infantile characterizations, but with mutual respect between opponents debate real issues to the benefit of all sides. Al
 
Upvote 0

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
Allen2 said:
Seems to me that the genius of a democracy is the freedom not to spout infantile characterizations, but with mutual respect between opponents debate real issues to the benefit of all sides.

Yes, exactly. I supplied a link to this article after reading numerous threads and posts on these boards characterizing all opposition to this war as the exclusive domain of "liberals."

Thank you for discerning my intent.
 
Upvote 0

coastie

Hallelujah Adonai Yeshua!
Apr 6, 2002
5,395
48
43
Central Valley of CA
Visit site
✟8,286.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Today at 02:05 PM caley said this in Post #4

While I disagree with Mr. Buchanan on many issues, I think he is one of the most sober antiwar columnists out there today.


He's a columnist? Sheesh, jack of all trades.

I don't care for Mr. Buchanan, but the title is funny, in it's irony. :)
 
Upvote 0

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
It's also worth pointing out that Buchanan excoriates "liberals" for not only hitching their wagon to conservative opposition to the war, but also for giving rise to the movement which has apparently installed itself as close advisors to this administration's defense department.

While Buchanan does have a controversial history with respect to the questions of Israel and American Jews, his article is well supported by not only the writings of the various neocon luminaries, but also official U.S. government position papers. I urge a close reading of Buchanan's article, particularly in light of Richard Perle's so-called "resignation" from an advisory committee closely connected with the Department of Defense.

There is far more than meets the eye to this administration's actions than what Bush and Blair have been publically pronouncing as of late. The overthrow of Iraq, and in fact an apparent long-term attempt to reshape the political horizon of the entire Middle East, was in the works long before 9-11.

Furthermore the international business connections among the Bush administration, many of whom could properly be termed war profiteers, are not inconsiderable.
 
Upvote 0

caley

Christian Anarchist
Oct 29, 2002
718
12
45
Fargo, ND
Visit site
✟1,081.00
Faith
Protestant
I actually think more people should read what Buchanan writes. He has been kind of flamed by both liberals and conservatives, mainly for his views on immigration (which is the issue on which I disagree with him), but everything else he writes about seems to be pretty on the money.
 
Upvote 0

Gunny

Remnant
Supporter
May 18, 2002
6,133
105
United States of America
✟35,162.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
FIRST-PERSON: The ACLU's cartoonish behavior
Friday, Mar 28, 2003
By Kelly Boggs


"In the aftermath of September 11, freedom of speech has been under attack. Political cartoonists are not immune," is how the American Civil Liberties Union begins its introduction of a special section on its web site titled, "USA Patriot Art: Cartooning and Free Speech in War Time."

The introduction continues, "In some cities cartoonists have been fired or lost freelance jobs because of cartoons critical of U.S. policy or for using 'wrong' metaphors..." The ACLU's response to this alleged stifling state of affairs was to put together a "show of cartoons from 41 editorial cartoonists from the U.S. and Mexico. This unique show premiered at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. June 21, 2002." It is currently carried on the ACLU web site for the world to see.

An example of cartoons the ACLU believes have suffered free speech "attacks" is one depicting school children saluting the American flag Nazi style with the caption, "Compulsory Patriotism." Another shows Attorney General John Ashcroft in Ku Klux Klan garb calling him "White Trashcroft." A third drawing has President George W. Bush flying a plane dubbed "Bush Budget" into twin towers, one titled "Social" and the other "Security."

After reviewing the ACLU's cyber spectacle I can only conclude that the purveyors of civil liberties are in need of a refresher course on the First Amendment. The section that needs special attention reads, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

It should be noted that of the 41 cartoonists featured by the ACLU only one indicated having his drawing banned by a newspaper. In other words all but one of the cartoons the ACLU charges are under fire were published in newspapers. The one sketch that did not appear was due to an editorial decision and not government intervention.

The truth is some of the cartoons highlighted by the ALCU were not well received by the news reading public. Angry letters flooded editors' desks and I am sure some, perhaps even many, threatened to cancel subscriptions. The result: Some cartoonists were asked to issue apologies. One was fired. This is not a freedom of speech issue. Instead, it is the reality of newspaper consumers and/or advertisers communicating displeasure.

While our government guarantees the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it does not secure the right to be published. Further, just because you have a public forum it does not mean that anyone has to pay any attention to -- much less like -- what you say. For the ACLU to even suggest via its "Patriot Art" display that the free speech rights of political cartoonists in America are under fire is absurd at best and at worst is a blatant mischaracterization of the First Amendment.

Johnny Hart, who draws the comic strip "BC," came under fire not too long ago for one of his cartoons. During the Easter season Hart depicted a menorah morphing into a cross. Many charged the cartoonist with displaying a lack of sensitivity toward the Jewish community. As a result several newspapers chose to drop "BC." I find it interesting that the ACLU did not rush to Hart's defense and did not include him in the recent lineup of "persecuted" cartoonists.

If the free speech rights of any of the cartoonists featured on the ACLU's web site have indeed been violated, then pray tell why has a lawsuit not been filed? I suspect that it is because the "champion of civil liberties" knows full well that the First Amendment has not been transgressed. The real issue is the ACLU seeking to further its hyper-secular anti-American agenda on an unsuspecting public.
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
59
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟25,473.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Buchannan is although a conservative Republican, an isolationist. He doesn't represent a majority of the Repulican party or conservative politicians. In fact its a small minority of conspiracy theorists that buy into the America needs to take care of herself attitude. This attitude isn't shared by our Leaders in Washington right now, and I am glad. It is the same people that were so opposed to NAFTA and other measures that follow this reasoning. Obviously they were wrong on NAFTA and they are wrong here, IMO.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
Lanakila said
It is the same people that were so opposed to NAFTA and other measures that follow this reasoning. Obviously they were wrong on NAFTA and they are wrong here, IMO.

NAFTA is completely irrelevant to this thread, as Caley pointed out, and your statement above is a non sequitur to boot.

Did you read Buchanan's article, and if so, to which of his claims do you object?
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
59
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟25,473.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I didn't read the whole article, I have listened Pat rail about America staying out of other countries business for many years. NAFTA has nothing to do with military interventionism, but its the same reasoning of we need to take care of our own, that is behind them both. I am sorry I didn't explain myself very clearly. Isolationism isn't something we can afford in this world in my estimation. We don't have to be globalist, or internationalists on everything, but getting rid of terrorism, and terrorist states such as Iraq is something we are involved in.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,546
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,889.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Today at 11:48 AM Morat said this in Post #14

How is Iraq a "terrorist state"?
Well, let's see---launching two aggressive wars on two of its next-door neighbors in less than two decades; using large amounts of lethal gas to dispose of a segment of its own population; launching Scud missiles at an ostensibly neutral nation during the First Gulf War; impressment of male children into military service with the threat of murder of the whole family if the child or they resist; machine-gunning civilians fleeing a city under attack by coalition forces; locating military targets near hospitals, schools, and other places likely to incur collateral damage on innocent civilians; rape, torture, execution, and mutilation of the citizenry by the demented sons of the dictator in charge; encouraging suicide bombers to attack coalition forces; offers of payment to foreign nationals who attack the United States; offers of payment to domestic citizens who kill American troops; contruction and use of large terrorist-training facilities.......

Shall we continue?

You can think whatever you like, but it certainly sounds like a terrorist state to me, both within and without.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Terrorist training camps might have something to do with it.
You mean the ones in Kurdish controlled Iraq under our no-fly zone? You're not seriously claiming those are Saddam's, are you?

I'm still wondering how come we never bombed them....

Wolsely: Terrorism != "nasty government". Perhaps you should define "terrorist" first.

I'd certainly agree that Iraq is a totalitarian dictatorship with an aggressive expansionistic history and a distates for the finer points of human rights.

But that's not "Terrorism".
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,546
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,889.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wolsely: Terrorism != "nasty government". Perhaps you should define "terrorist" first.
According to Webster, terrorism is the use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy. To that, I would add any "totalitarian dictatorship with an aggressive expansionistic history and a distates for the finer points of human rights." ;)
But that's not "Terrorism".
It is by my definition.

Your mileage may vary.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
According to Webster, terrorism is the use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy.
In modern parlance, "terrorism" is the deliberate targeting of civilians in leui of military targets.

IE, suicide bombs exploding in a marketplace, as opposed to a barracks, or flying airplanes into the World Trade Center, as opposed to the Pentagon (the latter assuming an empty plane. Use of a plane full of noncombatants would be, obviously, terrorism).

By that definition, which is the common one used to identify terrorists pre 9/11, Iraq is not a terrorist regime, although it has been known to monetarily support anti-Israeli terrorists.

If you're simply going to say "Nasty governments that attack other countries" then the USA was a terrorist nation up until the Civil War (one that used bioweapons, in fact. Those smallpox blankets due tend to haunt us....), and occasionally after. So was Germany and Japan, so was the Soviet Union, France, Britain....

All of those countries practiced wars of agression, and used force or threats of force to subjugate.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Susan

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
Feb 16, 2002
9,292
124
40
El Cajon, California, USA
Visit site
✟15,012.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Today at 01:38 PM Morat said this in Post #19


In modern parlance, "terrorism" is the deliberate targeting of civilians in leui of military targets.

IE, suicide bombs exploding in a marketplace, as opposed to a barracks, or flying airplanes into the World Trade Center, as opposed to the Pentagon (the latter assuming an empty plane. Use of a plane full of noncombatants would be, obviously, terrorism).

By that definition, which is the common one used to identify terrorists pre 9/11, Iraq is not a terrorist regime, although it has been known to monetarily support anti-Israeli terrorists.

If you're simply going to say "Nasty governments that attack other countries" then the USA was a terrorist nation up until the Civil War (one that used bioweapons, in fact. Those smallpox blankets due tend to haunt us....), and occasionally after. So was Germany and Japan, so was the Soviet Union, France, Britain....

All of those countries practiced wars of agression, and used force or threats of force to subjugate.


Good post Morat.
 
Upvote 0