[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Are the Interventionists Now Leaderless?
Source: Pat Bucanan.org
URL Source: http://buchanan.org/blog/are-the-in ... tionists-now-leaderless-129973
Published: Sep 1, 2018
Author: Patrick J. Buchanan
Post Date: 2018-09-01 07:27:55 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 3874
Comments: 40

“McCain’s Death Leaves Void” ran The Wall Street Journal headline over a front-page story that began:

“The death of John McCain will leave Congress without perhaps its loudest voice in support of the robust internationalism that has defined the country’s security relations since World War II.”

Certainly, the passing of the senator whose life story will dominate the news until he is buried at his alma mater, the Naval Academy, on Sunday, leaves America’s interventionists without their greatest champion.

No one around has the prestige or media following of McCain.

And the cause he championed, compulsive intervention in foreign quarrels to face down dictators and bring democrats to power, appears to be a cause whose time has passed.

When 9/11 occurred, America was united in crushing the al-Qaida terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities. John McCain then backed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which had no role in the attacks.

During Barack Obama’s presidency, he slipped into northern Syria to cheer rebels who had arisen to overthrow President Bashar Assad, an insurgency that led to a seven-year civil war and one of the great humanitarian disasters of our time. McCain supported the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, right up to Russia’s border. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, and was expelled by the Russian army, McCain roared, “We are all Georgians now!” He urged intervention. But Bush, his approval rating scraping bottom, had had enough of the neocon crusades for democracy.

McCain’s contempt for Vladimir Putin was unconstrained. When crowds gathered in Maidan Square in Kiev to overthrow an elected pro-Russian president, McCain was there, cheering them on.

He supported sending arms to the Ukrainian army to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass. He backed U.S. support for Saudi intervention in Yemen. And this war, too, proved to be a humanitarian disaster.

John McCain was a war hawk, and proud of it. But by 2006, the wars he had championed had cost the Republican Party both houses of Congress.


McCain was instrumental in bringing Trump to the forefront of American politics.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 39.

#9. To: buckeroo (#0)

I largely agreed with McCain on foreign policy and war.

Where we parted ways is over post-Cold War Russia and Vladimir Putin.

McCain could never see that Russia was not the USSR, and that Putin was not a Stalin-like figure. His hatred was too deeply entrenched. That caused a serious divide between me and him on a central aspect of foreign policy.

As far as playing the Islamists off against each other, and bombing the hell out of Islamist shitholes, he and I were on the same page. After 9/11 I thought we should have invaded, conquered and forcibly converted (to secularism) all of the terror-supporting states of the Middle East: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran - whatever it took.

McCain had a tin ear on Russia. I agreed with him elsewhere.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-09-01   14:05:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

As far as playing the Islamists off against each other, and bombing the hell out of Islamist shitholes, he and I were on the same page.

Yet, the good ol' USA helped to create the current strife in and about the Islamist terrorists that still exist in the ME.

Ever hear of "Freedom Fighters" by Ronald Reagan? Ever look into the legacy of this bullshit?

buckeroo  posted on  2018-09-01   14:19:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: buckeroo (#10)

Ever hear of "Freedom Fighters" by Ronald Reagan? Ever look into the legacy of this bullshit?

It defeated the USSR, bringing it to a speedy end, so ultimately the price was worth paying. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-09-01   14:40:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13 (#11) (Edited)

we should have invaded, conquered and forcibly converted (to secularism) all of the terror-supporting states of the Middle East: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran ... ultimately the price was worth paying

Shame on you!

A Pole  posted on  2018-09-01   16:19:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A Pole (#13)

Shame on you!

I believe that the best way to defeat Islam is through a Crusade.

But my view is the minority view, so it did not, and will not, come to pass.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-09-01   19:46:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15) (Edited)

But my view is the minority view

It is not relevant. Shame on you!

forcibly converted (to secularism) ... states of the Middle East: Iraq, ... Syria ...

Since when Iraq and Syria were invaded by Islamists?

A Pole  posted on  2018-09-02   3:40:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: A Pole (#16)

You bore me with your "shame on you".

Syria and Iraq have, and had, respectively, governments that funded and protected certain international terrorist organizations. Those terrorists were primarily focused on Israel - their Islamism was of an Arabist anti-Israel focus, primarily, as opposed to the "America is Satan" Al Qaeda jihadi style, but it makes no difference to me. People who think that, say, Israel belongs to them because their religion claims certain territory as inviolable are problematic. And when they outright attack my people and the people of my allies, they are enemies.

On 9/11 one set of Islamist terrorists struck at the very heart of the United States. This enragd the American people, rightly so, and gave us the opportunity to have the political unity, in that moment, to launch a Crusade against Islamic countries in general, to breakl ALL of the governments that will not make peace with us OR with our ally, Israel. To sweep the table by either destroying outright every government that supports terrorism against us ("us" meaning the US, the West, Israel and also, in my mind, Russia - because of course the Chechens and the nutjobs who blow up theaters and attack schools are Islamic, and consider themselves the "other", deserving of getting out of Russia BECAUSE they are "different", because of their Islam. And they're willing to kill Russian kids and civilians to advance that cause.

The cause of Islamic particularism is itself illegitimate. It expresses itself EVERYWHERE in the same way: violence and contempt for all other human life. But Muslim societies are pretty stupid, intellectually, backwards. They are only able to advance their killing agendas because of oil money, which is all controlled by governments over there. it's the governments that protect and fund the radical movements composed of Muslims everywhere in the world.

So, to stop the Islamic violence, you have to either destroy those governments outright and replace them with governments you control, who will control those flows of money under your supervision, OR you have to intimidate the governments that have done it in the past sufficiently that they stop.

The lesson of dealing with Islamic governments is that they are true believers who think God is on their side. They won't BE intimidated. Even Syria's government, beset by civil war and facing American forces, still stubbornly refuses to make a permanent peace with Israel to take off Western pressure.

Given the utter intransigence of Muslims, you have to conquer them and strip away their ability to route oil money into terrorism far and wide. That's what we SHOULD have done after 9.11. It would have been very easy, with the American public in an agitated and angry state, to declare war on a laundry list of Islamist movements (which we get to define) and on every country that supports them. You don't have to name the countries. If a country supports an organization on that list, you are authorized to attack it.

Congress would have given that war authorization, and the US President would have had carte blanche to take out any government that supported Islamists at will. There would have been a more generatl mobilization, and the dominos in the Middle East would have toppled quickly, no lingering war. That's what SHOULD have happened.

It didn't, because the US national leaders don't see Islam as the threat it is. That same brain trust also did not see China as the threat that it was rising to be. But they focused on Russia as THE threat, even though the USSR was long gone.

Our leaders are stupid, so we lost our chance to crush Islam, lost our chance to nip China's rise to fascism in the bud, and created the trauma we have with Russia.

Done right, the whole MIddle East would be American-dominated neo-colonies right now, Russia and the US would be at peace, and there would be no fake Chinese islands.

You never let a crisis go to waste. 9/11 gave us one bright shining moment in which the American people would have authorized a declared general war with full mobilization, for us to conquer and neo-colonize the Middle East, thereby crushing out the Islamists while taking control of the world's oil supply and, thereby, the Chinese, Indian and other Asian economies.

We had the strength. All that was required was the will. And with 9/11, the PEOPLE had the will to war. But the leaders were feckless assholes with no vision. So instead we went to war in limited fits and starts, did not send enough forces, lost our opportunity to mobilize a united country for a true war of conquest, and ended up spending two trillion dollars and ten thousand lives to go an make an Iranian ally out of Iraq, and break a bunch of countries leaving chaos in our wake.

Our grand strategy was visionless, our campaigns were poorly thought out, and we ended up doing to ourselves what the Soviets did to themselves in Afghanistan. Dumb.

I am ashamed at how badly we mishandled the war. I would have been proud to have conquered.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-09-02   7:11:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

I am ashamed at how badly we mishandled the war. I would have been proud to have conquered.

What is a difference between you and for example Hitler?

A Pole  posted on  2018-09-02   7:41:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A Pole (#18)

What is a difference between you and for example Hitler?

Their thoughts on financial enslavement seem to be the same.

CZ82  posted on  2018-09-04   7:06:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: CZ82 (#25)

Social Security is not financial enslavement.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-09-04   22:57:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)

Social Security is not financial enslavement.

Why are you forgetting about all of the other silly social programs you support that costs trillions, making the responsible financial slaves to the irresponsible? Why do we have to keep the dregs of society alive (to vote obviously) instead of letting more babies be born that could turn out to be much better citizens (with the correct education system of course)?

Is that big long list a bit embarrassing??

CZ82  posted on  2018-09-05   7:10:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: CZ82 (#28)

Is what embarrassing?

Social Security? No. Public Schools? No. State Universities? No. Public roads, rails, runways and seaports? No. Public sewers? I e the e No. Medicare and Medicaid? No. Unemployment and disability benefits? No. Food stamps? No. School and school lunches? No.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-09-05   21:23:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#30)

Social Security? No. Public Schools? No. State Universities? No. Public roads, rails, runways and seaports? No. Public sewers? I e the e No. Medicare and Medicaid? No. Unemployment and disability benefits? No. Food stamps? No. School and school lunches? No.

Why you going down a rabbit hole again??

BTW I'm curious as to why you think newborn babies are going to grow up to be criminals?

CZ82  posted on  2018-09-07   7:06:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: CZ82 (#31)

I'm not. You asked if I found social programs embarrassing. I listed the ones I care about. That's not a rabbit hole at all. That is what I defend when I say the social welfare state. You may be thinking of something else.

Why do I think babies will grow up to be criminals? Statistics. 50% of ghetto black men go to prison for crimes. A large number of aborted babies are black, conceived by unwed mothers in the ghetto. Outlaw Roe, and there will be about a million more poor ghetto babies each year, and half of them will grow up to be criminal predators.

We know from the crime statistics that crime in America began to drop sharply in the mid-to- late 80s, starting about 16 years after Roe v Wade. Crime declined continuously as cohort after cohort of the criminal unborn were nipped in the bud.

Now, politicians like Rudolph Giuliani claimed that this drop off in crime was due to his tough policing. While there may be some truth to that, it should be noted that the crime rate in Detroit plunged also during the same time period, and this was not due to police reform - nothing changed there, except for abortion legalization.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-09-08   1:15:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Vicomte13 (#32)

Why do I think babies will grow up to be criminals? Statistics. 50% of ghetto black men go to prison for crimes. A large number of aborted babies are black, conceived by unwed mothers in the ghetto. Outlaw Roe, and there will be about a million more poor ghetto babies each year, and half of them will grow up to be criminal predators.

We know from the crime statistics that crime in America began to drop sharply in the mid-to- late 80s, starting about 16 years after Roe v Wade. Crime declined continuously as cohort after cohort of the criminal unborn were nipped in the bud.

Now, politicians like Rudolph Giuliani claimed that this drop off in crime was due to his tough policing. While there may be some truth to that, it should be noted that the crime rate in Detroit plunged also during the same time period, and this was not due to police reform - nothing changed there, except for abortion legalization.

Your way means we pay to keep those people alive that would parent those babies that according to you would need to be killed/aborted to keep the crime rate down. Then we have to turn right around and pay for the abortions and whatever other silliness that goes along with it.

My way means we make those potential parents either become useful/responsible members of society or they would basically kill themselves off cause the handouts keeping them alive would be cut off.

My way is 3 times cheaper than your way and my way isn't as mean because they would have done it to themselves thru their own inactions/actions, not being torn apart with tongs and pliers cause you/them have no sense.

CZ82  posted on  2018-09-09   8:39:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: CZ82 (#33) (Edited)

My way is 3 times cheaper than your way and my way isn't as mean because they would have done it to themselves thru their own inactions/actions, not being torn apart with tongs and pliers cause you/them have no sense.

And no, it is not more cruel to tear apart unborn, unthinking (though feeling) babies apart in the womb over the course of a few minutes, than to allow thinking, feeling adults to slowly die of starvation and disease. The second thing is far, far more cruel than the first. Both are bad.

To avoid the second, we have to have a social safety net, and we do - and you yourself have agreed that we need it.

To avoid the first - by outlawing it - that safety net will have to be a lot more expensive, because there will be a lot more people using it, as they won't be aborted. THAT is "my way".

The way things ACTUALLY ARE is that we have the social safety net, and it's kind of threadbare but functional, and we abort the babies and thus keep the costs and crime low. That is how the people, through our system have come out. Neither you nor I agree with it, but it will never change by you beating me over the head with the fact that social welfare is expensive.

Yes, it is. And the people are not going to get rid of that cost, because the alternative is starvation and massive human suffering. Therefore, there WILL be social welfare, and that means that taxes WILL certainly be higher than you want them to be. This is inevitable, and the numbers that will continue to support that are invincible. So bitching about it is a stupid waste of time. You can never win that war, and should not waste time trying to fight it. Maybe 10% of the population will ever go along with cutting the social safety net to the point that we don't have to have very substantial taxes.

So, both social welfare and relatively high taxes are a GIVEN that simply have to be accepted. It's the cost of modern civilization, and fighting it is a fool's errand - one I'm not going to go on. If beating up on me, who accepts the social safety net like 90% of the rest of the people (and like you too, apparently) makes the kooks and yahoos on the lunatic fringe who post here feel better, go ahead. They make fun, but my ideas rule them, so I win that in the real world.

The issue, from MY perspective, is to not let the fact that we need quite a bit of social welfare run amok and become an argument for full-blown socialism, to pay for everything. THAT actually makes people poorer. We cannot live without heavy social welfare. But we will live a LOT WORSE if we go all the way to full socialism, which a lot of people want.

It is very hard to take the necessary, rational position that SOME of something is good, but that LESS of that thing AND MORE of that thing, are both bad.

Our bodies are like this with wine. A glass or two a day is healthier than none. Three glasses is less healthy than none or some. The golden mean of a glass for a woman and two glasses for a man is much healthier than drinking no alcohol, or drinking an extra glass of it. This notion of doing SOME of something, then stopping, seems to drive rigid-minded people and fanatics INSANE. They cannot seem to handle self-restraint.

Yes, we need all of that social welfare. No, we don't need to take over everything to do that.

What the socialists and the libertarians advocate is either drinking a whole bottle every day, or being a teetotaler, and BOTH of those things are suboptimal. The Golden Mean is simply better, but it's hard to argue for it, because socialists and libertarians are fanatics, and fanatics are outspoken assholes. "Golden Meaners" are common sense moderates, like me, and common sense moderates don't really want to fight. But we also know we're right, and we don't really compromise on anything either, any more than the socialists or the libertarians.

So you end up having a three way rigid uncompromising fight - and there are a lot more sensible common sense moderates like me than either socialists or libertarians. So the laws and the government and social welfare look a lot more like what I like, and the other two groups bleed out the eyes, scream and go mental about it.

And because I stick up my head on a site like this and argue, essentially, for normality and the Golden Mean, the fanatics on both sides scream at me.

You were screaming at me, but then you acknowledged that we DO need social welfare. Which means that you're not off in the crazy swamps. Yes, we DO. And that means we need taxes, a LOT of them. BUT we can't let the need for social welfare run away into the socialists' crazy desire to command and control anything, because they're kind of stupid and that always crashes and burns. Nor can we throw up our hands and give up and "go libertarian" and just let people starve, because we're not animals and we're not going to go nuts like that.

Sensible people should never be arguing about whether or not we're going to let people starve. We should be talking about the best way to pay for what we have to do, what the fairest tax codes are. What standard of living we want retirees, the poor, etc. to have, and what standard of education, and what standard of medical care.

I would say that the standard of living should be the same as the lower working class. The standard of education should be that of the suburban middle class, and the standard of health care should be universal Medicare.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-09-09   19:34:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Vicomte13 (#37) (Edited)

And that means we need taxes, a LOT of them.

No it just means some of the people on the programs need to be kicked off and/or sent back to the country they came from.

And BTW Trump agrees with me they're going to start enforcing the laws governing immigrants, like the one which says "If you can't support yourself and your families while here (no handouts allowed) you will go home to the schitthole you came from".

You still like Trump now?

CZ82  posted on  2018-09-14   20:08:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 39.

#40. To: CZ82 (#39)

Of course I still like Trump. Why wouldn't I? Look at the economy. Look at the deregulation. Look at the tariffs he's slapping on unfair traders! What's not to love?

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-09-15 13:06:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com