Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: GOP Platform: War Without End
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/ ... ck-j-buchanan/war-without-end/
Published: Mar 1, 2015
Author: Pat Buchanan
Post Date: 2015-03-01 13:38:39 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 45
Comments: 6

If the sadists of ISIS are seeking — with their mass executions, child rapes, immolations, and beheadings of Christians — to stampede us into a new war in the Middle East, they are succeeding.

Repeatedly snapping the blood-red cape of terrorist atrocities in our faces has the Yankee bull snorting, pawing the ground, ready to charge again.

“Nearly three-quarters of Republicans now favor sending ground troops into combat against the Islamic State,” says a CBS News poll. The poll was cited in a New York Times story about how the voice of the hawk is ascendant again in the GOP.

In April or May 2015, said a Pentagon briefer last week, the Iraqi Army will march north to recapture Mosul from the Islamic State.

On to Mosul! On to Raqqa!

Yet, who, exactly, will be taking Mosul?

According to Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times, the U.S. general who trained the Iraqi army says Mosul is a mined, booby-trapped city, infested with thousands of suicide fighters.

Any Iraqi army attack this spring would be “doomed.”

Translation: Either U.S. troops lead, or Mosul remains in ISIS’ hands.

Yet taking Mosul is only the beginning. Scores of thousands of troops will be needed to defeat and destroy ISIS in Syria.

And eradicating ISIS is but the first of the wars Republicans have in mind. This coming week, at the invitation of Speaker John Boehner, Bibi Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress.

His message: Obama and John Kerry are bringing back a rotten deal that will ensure Iran acquires nuclear weapons and becomes an existential threat to Israel. Congress must repudiate Obama’s deal, impose new sanctions on Iran and terminate the appeasement talks.

Should Bibi and his Republican allies succeed in closing the ramp to a diplomatic solution, we will be on the road to war.

Which is where Bibi wants us.

To him, Iran is the Nazi Germany of the 21st century, hell-bent on a new Holocaust. A U.S. war that does to the Ayatollah’s Iran what a U.S. war did to Hitler’s Germany would put Bibi in the history books as the Israeli Churchill.

But if Republicans scuttle the Iranian negotiations by voting new sanctions, Iran will take back the concessions it has made, and we are indeed headed for war. Which is where Sen. Lindsey Graham, too, now toying with a presidential bid, wants us to be.

In 2010, Sen. Graham declared: “Instead of a surgical strike on [Iran’s] nuclear infrastructure … we’re to the point now that you have to really neuter the regime’s ability to wage war against us and our allies. … [We must] destroy the ability of the regime to strike back.”

If Congress scuttles the nuclear talks, look for Congress to next write an authorization for the use of military force — on Iran.

Today, the entire Shiite Crescent — Iran, Iraq, Bashar Assad’s Syria, Hezbollah — is fighting ISIS. All these Shiites are de facto allies in any war against ISIS. But should we attack Iran, they will become enemies.

And what would war with Iran mean for U.S. interests?

With its anti-ship missiles and hundreds of missile boats, Iran could imperil our fleet in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. The Gulf could be closed to commercial shipping by a sinking or two.

Hezbollah could go after the U.S. embassy in Beirut. The Green Zone in Baghdad could come under attack by Shiite militia loyal to Iran.

Would Assad’s army join Iran’s fight against America?

It surely would if America listened to those Republicans who now say we must bring down Assad to convince Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arabs to join the fight against ISIS.

By clashing with Iran, we would make enemies of Damascus and Baghdad and the Shiite militias in Iraq and Beirut battling ISIS today — in the hope that, tomorrow, the conscientious objectors of the Sunni world — Turks, Saudis, Gulf Arabs — might come and fight beside us.

Listen for long to GOP foreign policy voices, and you can hear calls for war on ISIS, al-Qaida, Boko Haram, the Houthi rebels, the Assad regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, to name but a few.

Are we to fight them all? How many U.S. troops will be needed? How long will all these wars take? What will the Middle East look like after we crush them all? Who will fill the vacuum if we go? Or must we stay forever?

Nor does this exhaust the GOP war menu.

Enraged by Vladimir Putin’s defiance, Republicans are calling for U.S. weapons, trainers, even troops, to be sent to Ukraine and Moldova.

Says John Bolton, himself looking at a presidential run, “Most of the Republican candidates or prospective candidates are heading in the right direction; there’s one who’s headed in the wrong direction.”

That would be Rand Paul, who prefers “Arab boots on the ground.”

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: christine, lod, jethro tull, katniss, noone222 (#0)

You know i was just talking to a friend about patty Buchanan last week.

this guy has a big problem.

his problem is not the image he pretends to portray, for the image he portrays is much in line with mine- limited govt, no empire wars, sovereignty. those are good ideals.

the problem with this completely phony asshole statist Buchanan is that his track record does not line up with what he spews while he peddles his books,

this asshole ENDORSED GEORGE W BUSH IN 2004!

take that slowly and try to remember back to 2004 now.

a 2000 endorsement, I give a pass to. heck eve I voted for the creep bush in 2000 and didn't know better. what im talking about is 2004. anyone with any sense at all, knew in 2004 who bush was. much less a political savvy expert like Buchanan. I don't need to outline the details because I am sure no one here voted or endorsed bush in 04.

pay Buchanan, in interviews with both tom woods and lew Rockwell, defended the establishment of the EPA! "we needed to protect the environment", he said. WTF? shame on both of them for not calling him out for talking shit like that.

patty also slathers all over Nixon all day if the MFer was some sort of god. sick.

fast forward to kevin barretts interview with patty when patty was so uncomfortable he basically hung up and said 'dick cheney is my good friend' when kevin confronted pat about 9/11/01.

this asshole buchananis a real POS and later this year I will lay it out and decimate the deception of this prick (without cussing of course) ;-)

also, google pattys interview with larry McDonald before he was killed, sneering contempt, pat had for the good congressman., and sneering at his warnings of world government. there's just nothing worse than a phony traitor. I strongly dislike pat Buchanan for those reasons and many more.

"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28

Artisan  posted on  2015-03-01   17:16:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Artisan (#1)

the problem with this completely phony asshole statist Buchanan is that his track record does not line up with what he spews while he peddles his books,

Aren't they all like that. They're all peddling something, and it ain't morality and liberty.

The problem is that they all either are part of it, or think that there are solutions in politics, and anytime it's the latter, it always works against liberty.

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-01   17:54:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: christine (#0) (Edited)

I guess I'm somewhat confused, at least as the propaganda and those that believe in any of it goes.

So is it the neocons or Obama whose fault this is? Because I see a consensus here blaming the latter when it's merely an extension of neocon agenda, that he's spoken so much against. But he's "liberal" we're told. So how can this be?

Ism't the political establishment these days 100% pure smokescreen. Why does anyone treat it any differently.

In reality, Obama has little if anything to do with it except to serve as the red-herring scapegoat that he is.

I will add, he's also only been capable and allowed to do what he's been doing because of what on the record has been done by neocons and people exactly like Buchanon.

I fully understand that elements of Islam are destructive, but they're hardly the problem that has brought us to this point in America today, in fact, they're not a significant portion of it at all other than being used as a boogeyman aiding in the creation of the enforcement structure that allows the government, and those that truly run it, to have a free reign in enslaving us and oppressing us, both physically and even much more so financially, and do what they're doing. Meanwhile, Obama is supposedly responsible for it all.

And we wonder why this charade works so well.

Katniss  posted on  2015-03-01   17:59:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Katniss (#3)

In my lifetime, war with Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton and Obama.

Bushe tribe had theirs.

However do I subscribe war to any of them????

Not really.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-03-01   19:32:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Artisan (#1)

fair enough!

Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

christine  posted on  2015-03-01   20:50:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: christine (#0)

I'm not a Buchanan fan at all. He lost me when he ran away from his own Presidential run somewhat like Ron Paul. The difference between Pat and Ron is that Pat is a product of Washington, D.C. and Georgetown. He is a thoroughbred politician that gives Republicans some cause to remain in the party despite the fact that 90% of Republicraps are democraps in their actions.

In 1992, Buchanan explained his reasons for challenging the incumbent, President George H.W. Bush:

If the country wants to go in a liberal direction, if the country wants to go in the direction of [Democrats] George Mitchell and Tom Foley, it doesn't bother me as long as I've made the best case I can. What I can't stand are the back-room deals. They're all in on it, the insider game, the establishment game—this is what we're running against.[7]

Buchanan has remained a Republican.

The thing that really bothers me is that the discussion from D.C. never focuses upon the innocent victims of war especially the children. People like Buchanan speak of war as if it is just another election or just something to do.

All I want to say is that our primary enemy slithers in D.C.

"Honest, April 15th is April Fools Day".

noone222  posted on  2015-03-02   6:49:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest