Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Patrick J. Buchanan; Honorable Exit from Empire

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Patrick J. Buchanan; Honorable Exit from Empire

    Disclaimer: I supported Patrick J. Buchanan for President, and I support his views.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    July 25, 2008
    PJB: Honorable Exit From Empire

    by Patrick J. Buchanan

    As any military historian will testify, among the most difficult of maneuvers is the strategic retreat. Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow, Lee’s retreat to Appomattox and MacArthur’s retreat from the Yalu come to mind. The British Empire abandoned India in 1947 — and a Muslim-Hindu bloodbath ensued.

    France’s departure from Indochina was ignominious, and her abandonment of hundreds of thousands of faithful Algerians to the FALN disgraceful. Few American can forget the humiliation of Saigon ‘75, or the boat people, or the Cambodian holocaust.

    Strategic retreats that turn into routs are often the result of what Lord Salisbury called “the commonest error in politics … sticking to the carcass of dead policies.”

    From 1989 to 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and breakup of the U.S.S.R., America had an opportunity to lay down its global burden and become again what Jeane Kirkpatrick called “a normal country in a normal time.”

    We let the opportunity pass by, opting instead to use our wealth and power to convert the world to democratic capitalism. And we have reaped the reward of all the other empires that went before: A sinking currency, relative decline, universal enmity, a series of what Rudyard Kipling called “the savage wars of peace.”

    Yet, opportunity has come anew for America to shed its imperial burden and become again the republic of our fathers.

    The chairman of Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang Party has just been hosted for six days by Beijing. Commercial flights have begun between Taipei and the mainland. Is not the time ripe for America to declare our job done, that the relationship between China and Taiwan is no longer a vital interest of the United States?

    Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government wants a status of forces agreement with a timetable for full withdrawal of U.S. troops. Is it not time to say yes, to declare that full withdrawal is our goal as well, that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq?

    On July 4, Reuters, in a story headlined “Poland Rejects U.S. Missile Offer,” reported from Warsaw: “Poland spurned as insufficient on Friday a U.S. offer to boost its air defenses in return for basing anti-missile interceptors on its soil. …

    “‘We have not reached a satisfactory result on the issue of increasing the level of Polish security,’ Prime Minister Donald Tusk told a news conference after studying the latest U.S. proposal.”

    Tusk is demanding that America “provide billions of dollars worth of U.S. investment to upgrade Polish air defenses in return for hosting 10 two-stage missile interceptors,” said Reuters.

    Reflect if you will on what is going on here.

    By bringing Poland into NATO, we agreed to defend her against the world’s largest nation, Russia, with thousands of nuclear weapons. Now the Polish regime is refusing us permission to site 10 anti-missile missiles on Polish soil, unless we pay Poland billions for the privilege.

    Has Uncle Sam gone senile?

    No. Tusk has Sam figured out. The old boy is so desperate to continue in his Cold War role as world’s Defender of Democracy he will even pay the Europeans — to defend Europe.

    Why not tell Tusk that if he wants an air defense system, he can buy it; that we Americans are no longer willing to pay Poland for the privilege of defending Poland; that the anti-missile missile deal is off. And use cancellation of the missile shield to repair relations with a far larger and more important power, Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

    Consider, too, the opening South Korea is giving us to end our 60-year commitment to defend her against the North. For weeks, Seoul hosted anti-American protests against a trade deal that allows U.S. beef into South Korea. Koreans say they fear mad-cow disease.

    Yet, when a new deal was cut to limit imports to U.S. beef from cattle less than 30 months old, that too was rejected by the protesters. Behind the demonstrations lies a sediment of anti-Americanism.

    In 2002, a Pew Research Center survey of 42 nations found 44 percent of South Koreans, second highest number of any country, holding an unfavorable view of the United States. A Korean survey put the figure at 53 percent, with 80 percent of youth holding a negative view. By 39 percent to 35 percent, South Koreans saw the United States as a greater threat than North Korea.

    Can someone explain why we keep 30,000 troops on the DMZ of a nation whose people do not even like us?

    The raison d’etre for NATO was the Red Army on the Elbe. It disappeared two decades ago. The Chinese army left North Korea 50 years ago. Yet NATO endures and the U.S. Army stands on the DMZ. Why?

    Because, if all U.S. troops were brought home from Europe and Korea, 10,000 rice bowls would be broken. They are the rice bowls of politicians, diplomats, generals, journalists and think tanks who would all have to find another line of work.

    And that is why the Empire will endure until disaster befalls it, as it did all the others.
    Spread the Word!

    http://www.buchanan.org/blog/2008/07...t-from-empire/
    Last edited by Stormy; 07-26-2008, 01:15 AM.

  • #2
    You come up with the most random stuff Stormy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Columbus View Post
      You come up with the most random stuff Stormy.
      It's not my article. It's current, and it needs attention. Obama is talking about the same topic.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Stormy View Post
        It's not my article. It's current, and it needs attention. Obama is talking about the same topic.
        Not attacking Stormy, just laughing at some of the articles you come up with from such scattered sources.

        Comment


        • #5
          I watched a group commentary today on cable news. On guest said that our relationship with Europe was that of 100 years of defense, assitance (monetarily and technical) and we 've received nothing but whining for our efforts. I'm not such a believer in isolationism, but I think it's time we priotize who we defend and who give $ to. And speaking of other countries whining and complaining about the US, let's not forget during the height of the cold war we gave (sold) grain to our greatest threat, the USSR. We're such ogres.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by PB3021 View Post
            I watched a group commentary today on cable news. On guest said that our relationship with Europe was that of 100 years of defense, assitance (monetarily and technical) and we 've received nothing but whining for our efforts. I'm not such a believer in isolationism, but I think it's time we priotize who we defend and who give $ to. And speaking of other countries whining and complaining about the US, let's not forget during the height of the cold war we gave (sold) grain to our greatest threat, the USSR. We're such ogres.
            [bold highlite mine]

            One wonders why the US would subsidize their enemy? Hard to believe we are so altruistic. Then why? Is it possible there was no threat at all, but only a dog & pony show to inflate the military-industrial complex budget? Or, was our motive to soften the 'Bear' with kindness; to show the US a kinder more gentler Nation?

            Comment


            • #7
              Could be along the lines of us giving aid and medical attention to those we were just in a firefight with a few minutes before....

              Our "war" with the USSR was with their government. NOT their people. Their people were starving because their government diverted their full attention to combating our growing strength, instead of helping their people (which you have to do in a communist regime)
              “The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."

              "You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by justhomp View Post
                Our "war" with the USSR was with their government. NOT their people. Their people were starving because their government diverted their full attention to combating our growing strength, instead of helping their people (which you have to do in a communist regime)
                I was about to say the same thing. Also, our farmers made more grain than we could really use at home. Not selling it would hurt them. Also, not being able to self-sufficiently feed their own citizens and having to buy grain from the evil capitalists dogs had a physiological impact on the Soviets.
                Last edited by nuthead; 07-26-2008, 11:56 AM.
                “We don't disagree, you are wrong. Until you have a clue what you are talking about we can't disagree.” - cgh6366

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by justhomp View Post
                  Could be along the lines of us giving aid and medical attention to those we were just in a firefight with a few minutes before....

                  Our "war" with the USSR was with their government. NOT their people. Their people were starving because their government diverted their full attention to combating our growing strength, instead of helping their people (which you have to do in a communist regime)
                  Agreed.

                  Then I would ask; where was the American aid to Ukraine in 1932 -1933 when nearly 10 million Ukrainians starved to death because of a food tax program enforced by Stalin? Eleanor Roosevelt visited Ukraine and saw no signs of starvation. One wonders where was she looking, or, what was she shown?

                  It may just be that the wrongs of the Democratic Roosevelt administration was righted years later under the Republican Eisenhower. I don't know.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That time frame we were going through a bit of an isolationalist movement, IIRC, so it was hard for us to justify sending food/money. That and the whole "Great Depression" thing kinda hurt our ability to "help" other poor countries...
                    “The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."

                    "You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                      In 2002, a Pew Research Center survey of 42 nations found 44 percent of South Koreans, second highest number of any country, holding an unfavorable view of the United States. A Korean survey put the figure at 53 percent, with 80 percent of youth holding a negative view. By 39 percent to 35 percent, South Koreans saw the United States as a greater threat than North Korea.

                      Can someone explain why we keep 30,000 troops on the DMZ of a nation whose people do not even like us?
                      IIRC, that same poll cited that South Koreans were also overwhelmingly against us withdrawing from their nation as well...
                      Last edited by equinox137; 07-27-2008, 11:56 AM.
                      "First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama." - Al Sharpton, March 21, 2010

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                        Agreed.

                        Then I would ask; where was the American aid to Ukraine in 1932 -1933 when nearly 10 million Ukrainians starved to death because of a food tax program enforced by Stalin? Eleanor Roosevelt visited Ukraine and saw no signs of starvation. One wonders where was she looking, or, what was she shown?
                        Err....that was not a "food tax program" enforced by Stalin, it was an artificial famine enforced by Stalin. I don't think any American aid would have been allowed, even if it were sent.

                        Also, Eleanor Roosevelt never visited the Ukraine. Maybe that's Walter Duranty of the New York Times that you're thinking of.
                        "First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama." - Al Sharpton, March 21, 2010

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Quote:
                          Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
                          Agreed.

                          Then I would ask; where was the American aid to Ukraine in 1932 -1933 when nearly 10 million Ukrainians starved to death because of a food tax program enforced by Stalin? Eleanor Roosevelt visited Ukraine and saw no signs of starvation. One wonders where was she looking, or, what was she shown?
                          Originally posted by equinox137 View Post
                          Err....that was not a "food tax program" enforced by Stalin, it was an artificial famine enforced by Stalin. I don't think any American aid would have been allowed, even if it were sent.
                          Yes, it was an artifical famine caused by Stalin collecting taxes paid in grain; if you weren't working in a Commune, you owed a certain poundage of grain to the state.
                          Also, Eleanor Roosevelt never visited the Ukraine. Maybe that's Walter Duranty of the New York Times that you're thinking of.
                          She did visit. Yes, Duranty wrote about the 'famine that wasn't' in the NY Times.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ah, Stalin. Perhaps the only person in history that Hitler could call a monster.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The Famine in Ukraine is not unique to the world. Famine has been used as a weapon for centuries.

                              The corporate take over of our food supply here in America is the issue here, and is best illustrated by this YouTube video. Not unlike Ukraine, where grain was collected by Stalin's NKVD thugs, modern-day corporations need not collect it, it'll just be unavailable to the masses.

                              We should all be asking the question; 'How much of your own food do you produce?'

                              Where would you go to get food if all the stores were closed?

                              A surprisingly large number of people in the so-called "developed" world answer "zero" and "I don't know."

                              If you're depending on Corporate America to make sure your food supply is safe, you may be making a fatal mistake.

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNezT...gi?read=210454

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 5001 users online. 256 members and 4745 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X