Comments on: Return of the War Party

By: robert

robert — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:34:00 +0000

Joseph,
Sorry, but I thought you were a wee bit exagerating the threat of 2% Pat and the military threat of Iran. Mr. Buchanan is probably still rubbing his sore spots about the fair and equal treatment, on and off the internet, over any discussion of American foreign policy in the Middle East. It is a touchy subject and involves much more than the cliches we toss around. I think the Israeli newspapers are much more open to the free and open debate you desire than the Fox news, Gray Lady, Washington Post cant that has become the common neo-con fare. One of my friends who I joined with the Marine Corps with, now with seven children at home, is on his fourth deployment (this time to Afghanistan until Sept. the other three were in the hot spots of Iraq)a Colonel means something to Marines and I get tired of hearing this silliness about America's moral role everywhere in the world especially after visiting with his wife this past weekend. Enjoy the thread and say what you please ( I am not a Chronicles monitor) but other than Mr. Buchanan, who else is speaking up for other countries to share some of the World's burdens?

By: Joseph McNulty

Joseph McNulty — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:04:19 +0000

The wonders of the internet. Free debate. The exchange of ideas. Freedom for the idea we hate, etc. Being told to get out of the site and post at the, presumably benighted, NRO site, a fate worse than death. Buchanan blamed Poland for the start of World War II in his most recent book of the subject, in which Churchill was a villain. You see, I remember when Buchanan was pro-Israel and supported America's emergency re-supply of Israel (from stocks in Europe), which saved it during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. He has come a long way. I used to admire him during the Seventies when he wrote columns about "Captive Nations Week." I do not believe that he was pro-Slav or pro-Russian in those days. With regard to whether the Iranians want "to perform fellatio on Uncle Sam," I think that we probably should leave Clinton foreigh policy out of it. Regarding Shiite theology, you may not be interesed in it, but (to paraphrase Trotsky) it is interested in you. Also, what difference does it make that the people do not support the Mullahs., who claim to rule with Allah's imprimatur and are perfectly prepared to do what is necessary to maintain their grip on power. The Shah abdicated because he did not want to order his army to shoot the people down in the streets. The Mullahs are perfectly willing to do so.

By: R. McCabe

R. McCabe — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:24:28 +0000

I agree with the general points presented here in terms of overstating reality and demonizing Iran, etc.

But to be fair to the fear crowd, the game is different now than it was during the Cold War. ICBMs (or any standard military machinery) are not a necessary link in the chain of destruction, if terrorizing is more important to you than pure body count, "unconditional surrender" or winning a war. If a nation or group had a warhead developed, it would be fairly easy for them to attach it to American soil and have a go.

The main danger with that reality is not even the detonation itself but that it would probably be very difficult to tell who the culprits were, making just retaliation difficult. Threat of retaliation has been the best defensive peacemaker. Not even the wackiest of Mullahs would bring about the destruction of their own people.

Of course I'm pretty sure we can detect warhead detonation tests anywhere in the world. The question remains what if one is not performed?

This is perhaps tangential, because it wouldn't justify invading Iran anyway. But perhaps the conversation does need to evolve.

By: Robert Bruce

Robert Bruce — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:19:48 +0000

Hostages big frigging deal!!!!!! As I also recall no one was killed. The bulk of the Iranian Air Force is still Nixon era F-4s and F-14s that spend a great deal in hangars due to lack of spare parts. Their tanks are also cold war relics. Only modern weapons systems they have are the Russian Sunburn antiship missile and close range air defense systems from Russia. So much for the great threat from Iran. People like Aikira need to wake the hell up!!! Iran isn't a threat, but they aren't on their knees begging to perform fellatio on Uncle Sam either, so they must go. Remember the USA is being run by Trotsyites, who dream of doing what their mentor couldn't do in 1919-20 and that is take the world for Bolshevism by force. America is in fact a Marxist nation already, just hasn't completed the journey. That day is coming, as the assault on the 2nd Amendment will be relentless and more folks lose their homes in the mortgage mess. They will scream for the govt to save them!!!!!!!!!

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:59:53 +0000

"I have a distinct memory of Iranians invading American ambassadorial territory in Tehran. In fact, I seem to recall some business about hostages … 444 days … something like that."

Yes, and now that I am reminded of that I say, bomb them now, nuke them if necessary, commit more forces from those unavailable now, more boots on the ground, from Afghanistan on to Iran, and nuclear Pakistan too!! Pat did say,"None of this is to suggest the Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and progress," but to hell with accuracy or thoughtful reflection on what words mean, we must bomb and invade them. They want a fight let us give them one, before the Mushroom clouds, before our country collpases, its aspirations to Empire fail, before our armed services are completly broken, before arriving caskets at Dover become public again, before dawn tomorrow, etc. etc.... NUTS!!!!

By: gargi

gargi — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:47:02 +0000

The tragedy of Iran was that people wanted more freedoms under the corrupt Shah, but what they got in turn were a bunch of Mullahs who copy Arab culture of the middle ages as my Persian friends say and put down their Persian culture.
But Iran is still not Pakistan. Most people hate the Mullahs and if there were to be elections, they would not enjoy power--most people are in their twenties and could care less about the revolution. Moreover, people are more or less homogenous in the sense of having a strong Persian identity, unlike Iraq which is a mess. Moreover, after the revolution, most of the educated people left the country so there is no leadership there--if you oppose the government you die.
Also, one has to separate the people of Iran from their government--with Pakistan it is different--most Pakistanis are very religious in a fundamentalist sense--Iranians are not. This is a huge difference. The Mullahs are hated so much that they cannot even get a taxi ride these days my Persian friends tell me. Anyway, any educated Iranian with a sense of their history and culture hate the current government from what I have observed--there is hope there because the youth there want changes.

By: Akira

Akira — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:38:36 +0000

Re: " Iran has not launched an offensive war against any nation within the memory of any living American."

That's funny. I have a distinct memory of Iranians invading American ambassadorial territory in Tehran. In fact, I seem to recall some business about hostages ... 444 days ... something like that.

Poor Buchanan seems to have gone senile. He was on a good roll until the second last sentence. A bridge too far.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:49:34 +0000

"First, Buchanan defended Hitler and the invasion of Poland (which he saw as Poland’s fault); now, he defends the Mullahs as if they were just “normal” dictators like Stalin or Mao, subject to rational “deterrance.” The whole point about the Mullahs is that they see everything through Shiite theology. They may not be open to a rational calculation of gains and losses."

MR. McNulty,
Please go spread this stuff somewhere else. Buchanan defended Hitler? Normal dictators like Stalin and Mao? Shiite theology? And you want readers of this list to be open to your "rational" calculations? First explain what was normal about Stalin or Mao? What is Shiite theology? How does it differ from the Sunni and Whahabbi theology? Were the 9-11 attackers of the Sunni, Shiite or Wahabbi sects? Was Iraq governed by Sunnis or Shiites? Did we empower the Shiites of Iran by dismantling the Sunnis in Iraq? Why do Israelis disagree about who should be responsible for Mid-East peace? What exactly are you attempting to accomplish by your comments here? Why not post over at NRO where they believe in conservative ignorance, foster it, perpetuate it and profit from it? You might become an editor there someday, really.

By: Brock H.

Brock H. — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:54:19 +0000

Joe McNulty,

Who cares what a liberal interventionist establishmentarian like Richard Nixon would do in this situation? Defending Tricky Dick is one of Buchanan's faults, I suppose it just comes from being around him every day for five and a half years and getting to know him really well.

By: Joseph McNulty

Joseph McNulty — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:56:05 +0000

First, Buchanan defended Hitler and the invasion of Poland (which he saw as Poland's fault); now, he defends the Mullahs as if they were just "normal" dictators like Stalin or Mao, subject to rational "deterrance." The whole point about the Mullahs is that they see everything through Shiite theology. They may not be open to a rational calculation of gains and losses. Iran with a nuke will change the Middle East. Do you not think that Sunni powers like Egypt and Whahabbi powers like Saudi Arabis will then be under pressure to develop or acquire nukes of their own? The "Persian Gulf" will then be an Iranian lake. I suppose that we are to deny the possibility of any Iranian nuke until an Iranian nuclear breakout, and then ww will be "reassured" by people like Buchanan about "deterrance" and told that, after all, it's too late to do anything about it anyway. Is our concern an "alien agend?" Not unless you desire an American withdrawal from the world, leaving Israel to its sad fate. What would Nixon, who used to be Buchanan's boss before he became unhinged, say?