1) I am not convinced that this place is less dilligent in it's pursuit of reality based on such facts as the poll which showed that over 2/3rds of Americans believed at least one of the following 3 non-facts.: That Saddam had been proven to be behind 9-11, that most of the population of the planet supported the war, or that Saddam had used WMDs against us during the initial days of the invasion. 2) This is an ends vs. means argument. We have, as a society, reconciled that flawed means poses a greater threat than the end it seeks to root out, as it becomes systemic. Put it this way...if this constitutes the mis-use of American power, and/or the circumvention of the Constitution, which poses a greater threat to the world, in the long run, misdirected US power or what Saddam was doing? Same reason we hold cops to a standard of accountability even if they think they know that there are drugs in the house... 3) Less than expected? Expected by whom, exactly? The administration predicted virtually no support, and almost universal support for us. 4) Where I would want to live is irrelevent. I donlt apply my standards or priorities to other nations with the assumption that mine is the correct way. Among the many flaws with that is this: people usually agree with themsleves. 5) Maybe it's just ture....maybe. And if it's not?
I've reconciled myself to this inevitability. I used to think that showing that T_J is talking nonsense, arguing in circles, or being a hypocrite meant that I had made a point, but then he would post a picture, declare himself a winner, of post soemthing in all caps, and there's just no competing with that...
Sorry, t_j, but from the point of view of someone not blinded by the right, MacBeth is winning this one hands down.
Any war that isn't a last resort regardless of who it's against or for what purpose is unjust. If you can accomplish the same goals without war, or at least have other options to attempt before war, but opt for war anyway, is unjust. It's unjust and costs human lives. And if this war is just because it was against a murdering tyrant. Isn't this war less just as a war against a bigger tyrant, like Kim of N. Korea? If the justification for war is that Saddam was a tyrant, wouldn't the most justification be for going after the most tyrranical?
Yeah. Thanks for bringing this thread, and frankly myself, back on line. This isn't a liberal position. This isn't even necessarily my position. This is the position of a noted hard-line Republican/conservative. His position is an explanation of certain facts, and in many ways is, as you'd expect, as favorable to Bush as possible given the circumstances. I am not asking people to say, 'well, he's a conservative, I'm a conservative, therefore I must agree with him." WHat I am asking Bush/war supporters to do is look at those facts which any realist, even Pat Buchanan, can't overlook. You can, as Nomar did, openly praise Machievellian practices in the interests of selfish goals. You can pretend you've never heard them before, and try and marginalize specific sources for each. You can dissapear from the forum when the facts become so overwhelming you can't arguem against them. What I don't understand is people who moralize en route to looking past them, or simply act as if they're not there. Don't agree with Buchanan on faith. God knows I wouldn't advocate that as a common practice. But ask yourself this: If the facts are so apparent, if the situation is so clear in some respects, that hard-liners on my side are conceding them and trying to explain them, is there something I am not seeing or refusing to see?
i've avoided paticipating in this thread since pat buchannan has about as much credibility w/ real conservatives as does paul krugman. macbeth, i'm disappointed that you would take the random ramblings of an idiot isolationist mad on the radio show of another idiot and try to pass them off as some challenge to neocon orthodoxy. it'd be like taking some comment michael moore made to al franken and trying to pass it off as legitimate criticism. republican or no, buchanan is an idiot.
I think that has been his general slant, but it should be noted that he is partisan enough to agree with 'going after thugs' post facto, and is recommending the GOP to stress that aspect rather than continue trying to suggest that their pre-war positions have any merit. IOW, if he is, it isn't the factor behind his position here, as the one apsect he agrees with is in direct contradiction to that slant.
Adressed the iso bit perviously. The Moore thing has been done. But the point was, as I re-stated, not his conclusions, but the unavoidable facts upon which they were premised.
Michael Moor may be out on a limb. Al Franken's material is researched and accurate. EVery bit of the latest book is legitimate except what is obviously a humorous diversion. Buchannon is an isolationist, a xenophobe, but is still a conservative. He may not be part of the conservative establishment. I also think he's somewhat insane. But that only adds to MacBEth's argument. If, even a crazy, xenophobe, like Buchannon can see the flaw in the administrations arguments then other 'more reasonable' conservatives shouldn't have a difficulty understanding.
http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html This is an article by Pat Buchannan I have not finished reading yet...but it was linked off of drudgereport, and it's certainly pertinent to this thread.
Thanks for the link, Max. What an excellent, excellent column. I don't agree with a few parts of it, but it's only a few. That is the best thing written by Buchanan I've ever read and I don't know how the conservatives on this board can disagree with him after reading it. He absolutely ripped to shreds the Administration's foreign policy. Ripped it into little bits and showed it for what it really is. Simply outstanding. Thanks again for the link, Max. I'll be e-mailing it to some people I know. You can bet on it. edit: He did more than tear Bush's foreign policy to shreds, he gave a superb summation of the bigotry and deceit which permeates the Bush Administration's domestic policy as well.
The bottom line is that we will never know what happened. It is my thought to remain optimistic that our leaders will not be so dubious. Perhaps that is naive. I can say this. Out of all the people who have spoken on this, we are analyzing that old cook Pat Buchanan?
Isn't it strange? I find it hard to believe he wrote the column Max linked... I'm so used to his wacko viewpoints. But what I read was far from that. Go figure.
Only some of his opinions are really wacky and those make the news, most of his stuff is a logical extension of conservatism. I actually agree with a lot of his points on other issues.
