The One person responsible for the MESS we are in as told by Pat Buchanan
#11
(09-12-2011, 04:52 AM)Walty Wrote:
(09-11-2011, 11:29 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(09-11-2011, 10:20 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: Pat Buchanan is the man!!! Too bad there are no presidential candidates who think like him and are Catholic...Sorry Ron Paul doesn't count!!

God Bless him and God Bless America!

Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have very different political philosophies. 

In some ways this is true, but I can think of almost nothing in this article that RP would disagree with.

Pat Buchanan states in the article that he supported the War in Afghanistan when it had the limited objective of overthrowing the Taliban, but condemns the "nation building" the war has turned into.  Ron Paul opposed the war from the very beginning.  He was sole vote against authorizing the War in Afghanistan.  Buchanan is condemning American intervention abroad not because he thinks it's inherently wrong, but because he thinks it is ineffective and is diminishing America's power in the world.  Buchanan is especially hostile to the idea of spreading democracy around the world as he sees democracy as a destabilizing force in the third word. Ron Paul on the other hand does think American intervention abroad is wrong because it violates international law (pretty sure Buchanan would laugh at the idea of international law) and because he doesn't think America needs to be a world power.  Ron Paul is not opposed to the spread of freedom, actually quite the opposite, but opposes spreading freedom by force.  Buchanan has no problem with using force to support things more concrete and tangible than freedom.  So while they basically reach the same conclusions on Iraq and Afghanistan they get there by nearly diametrically opposed paths. 

In short, Pat Buchanan condemns our ends but not our means. Ron Paul condemns our means but not really our ends.  Ron Paul would be happy as a clam if Iraq became a libertarian society, while Buchanan would see such an outcome as horrible and sure to lead to anarchy.   

And I don't think you will hear anyone say "Bush did it" because while not all of us agree with Pat Buchanan, I think most people here respect him and think what he has to say is worth considering even if we disagree with it (i.e. he's not a crank). 
Reply
#12
Pat is Catholic, and Ron Paul is not. As a Protestant, believing in the Protestant "work ethic" he falls for notions like "libertarianism". A Catholic would pick and choose the parts which are good, and much of it is not. Pat Buchanan for Monarch !  :)

tim
Reply
#13
(09-12-2011, 10:30 AM)timoose Wrote: Pat is Catholic, and Ron Paul is not. As a Protestant, believing in the Protestant "work ethic" he falls for notions like "libertarianism". A Catholic would pick and choose the parts which are good, and much of it is not. Pat Buchanan for Monarch !  :)

tim

This!!!! Hits the nail firmly on the head again!!

:amen:
Reply
#14
(09-12-2011, 09:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Pat Buchanan states in the article that he supported the War in Afghanistan when it had the limited objective of overthrowing the Taliban, but condemns the "nation building" the war has turned into.  Ron Paul opposed the war from the very beginning.  He was sole vote against authorizing the War in Afghanistan. 

RP voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_m...s_id=V3064
Reply
#15
It's really very sad that Bush's actions had an effect which was completely opposite to the intention. This reminds me of the depths of pure Greek tragedy. Our entire venture out there is one big Aesop about unintended consequences. Buchanan is one of the greatest political minds. It's so lovely to see a commentator who is against endless wars to spread "democracy", while still being against the gigantic influx of Mexicans because they're ruining everything. He seems to be a man with a set of unique views that were gathered according to his personality and character, not just a stock he accepted upon becoming "®".
Reply
#16
Of course I am going to agree with Pat. No one makes his point better, while playing by the rules, and the established myth of the current age. He's brilliant at it. Now why do I say this? Because I'm pretty sure that he knows and believes a lot more than what he writes about current realities. But, he is able to come up with the same solutions and methods that most of us "conspiracy nuts" would be in full support of.

He has the finesse of a politician and the heart of a Catholic.

God bless him.
Reply
#17
(09-12-2011, 02:01 PM)Walty Wrote:
(09-12-2011, 09:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Pat Buchanan states in the article that he supported the War in Afghanistan when it had the limited objective of overthrowing the Taliban, but condemns the "nation building" the war has turned into.  Ron Paul opposed the war from the very beginning.  He was sole vote against authorizing the War in Afghanistan. 

RP voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_m...s_id=V3064

Busted!
Reply
#18
(09-12-2011, 02:01 PM)Walty Wrote:
(09-12-2011, 09:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Pat Buchanan states in the article that he supported the War in Afghanistan when it had the limited objective of overthrowing the Taliban, but condemns the "nation building" the war has turned into.  Ron Paul opposed the war from the very beginning.  He was sole vote against authorizing the War in Afghanistan. 

RP voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_m...s_id=V3064

I stand corrected on that. 
Reply
#19
(09-12-2011, 02:57 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(09-12-2011, 02:01 PM)Walty Wrote:
(09-12-2011, 09:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Pat Buchanan states in the article that he supported the War in Afghanistan when it had the limited objective of overthrowing the Taliban, but condemns the "nation building" the war has turned into.  Ron Paul opposed the war from the very beginning.  He was sole vote against authorizing the War in Afghanistan. 

RP voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_m...s_id=V3064

I stand corrected on that.   

Methinks your anti-Ron Paul zeal has caused you to become delusional. You are now imagining facts in vivid detail. Sole vote against authorization, eh?
Reply
#20
(09-12-2011, 03:03 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(09-12-2011, 02:57 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(09-12-2011, 02:01 PM)Walty Wrote:
(09-12-2011, 09:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Pat Buchanan states in the article that he supported the War in Afghanistan when it had the limited objective of overthrowing the Taliban, but condemns the "nation building" the war has turned into.  Ron Paul opposed the war from the very beginning.  He was sole vote against authorizing the War in Afghanistan. 

RP voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_m...s_id=V3064

I stand corrected on that.   

Methinks your anti-Ron Paul zeal has caused you to become delusional. You are now imagining facts in vivid detail. Sole vote against authorization, eh?

You wouldn't like Ron Paul more if he was the sole vote against authorizing the War in Afghanistan? I must have been thinking of another vote. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)