How do you feel about Pat Buchannan's recent remarks?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Recently, Pat Buchannan went on record (and in a book to be released) blaming England for the holocaust. His position is one of isolation and that we should never have entered the war either....How do you feel about that?
Oh--IMHO, he is an idiot....
-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), September 28, 1999
>>>Oh--IMHO, he is an idiot....<<<
Not really. He is just standing by the Monroe Doctrine. That's not much in favor now, but IMHO national sovereignty is still better for Americans as a people than the globalist New World Order.
-- Elskon (email@example.com), September 28, 1999.
How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.
Neville Chamberlain Radio broadcast, 27 Sept. 1938, on Germany's annexation of the Sudetanland, Czechoslovakia.
We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.
Neville Chamberlain Speech, 6 Oct. 1938, to the House of Commons, one week after Chamberlain's return from the Munich Conference.
Draw your own conclusions.
Beaujolais Nouveau and D-cells.
We're going to party like it's 1999.
Your tax return must be postmarked no later than April 15, 1900.
-- no talking please (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 28, 1999.
Try actually reading what he wrote, instead of believing what others say he said, which IS taken out of context. In his book he makes a valid argument against the US entering the war as EARLY as we did. He, along with several historians and highly reconized public figures, seem to think that England had Germany under control. I'm not going to go into detail or even try to argue his point because I'm not really sure I agree with it, but get the FACTS first.
Do you always brand people IDIOTS from one liners?
-- CygnusXI (email@example.com), September 28, 1999.
I have his book and I am READING it. So far he makes a lot of sense. I haven't gotten to the part on WWII yet. My opinion will be formed by all he writes, not by what other people interpret for me. Try doing that sometime before posting a thread.
-- Mr. Pinochle (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 28, 1999.
The idea of a president committed to keeping us OUT of foreign entanglements has a definite appeal.
The fact that the liberal media violently, visciously, rabidly hates Buchanan gives him immense appeal as well.
I'd probably vote for him on the basis of those two facts alone.
-- that's not the (email@example.com), September 28, 1999.
The Monroe Doctrine needs to be brought back, revised a bit, and put back into play. Ole Pat definately is the way to go...(for now...)
-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.
I don't know if he is an idiot, but it certainly seems that his view on WW2 is a bit skewed. This fact will be hyped to the maximum volume in the press so he does not steal away votes from that sacred cow, our two-party system. It's sad to see someone as idealistic is PB shoot himself in the foot.
He was right about WWI, though. If the allied powers had not been so punitive following the Armistice, Hitler would never have found an audience in the first place. He would have been laughed off the stage as some kind of nutcase.
Nonintervention is a good idea, IMO, but there are times such as WWII where a foreign war equals self defence. The island territories of the US were overrun by Japanese, who wanted the entire Pacific to themselves. Germans were torpedoing everything that moved off the coast of North Carolina. To me those sound like acts of war.
-- coprolith (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 28, 1999.
I didn't like him before. I like him less now.
-- Kristi (email@example.com), September 28, 1999.
I was born in 1938 in England. The U.S. had no problem in selling arms to the U.K. and also Germany. They never got their finger out until the war killed some of their own.
To protect their own interest in getting oil they expected the rest of the world to 'help' them in Iraq. BUT!!! They wanted to be safe in the air and idiots such as the U.K and Canada to be down below.
In England there is an expression. Shit or get off the pot.
-- Kath (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 28, 1999.
You who think only the computers are interconnected, but politics is separate... it's one globe, and a small one at that.
You think Pat Buchanan cares about you or the good of the country? What he wants is personal and centered around himself. Not that he's the only one, but why go for the esatz?
-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 28, 1999.
The Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor, we declared war on them and Hitler then decared war against us. If Germany declared war on us, how are we responsible for Hitler's murder of 8,000,000 people?
Germany was marching through Europe, taking over countries. They also were developing the bomb, and we would have been destroyed eventually had we hidden behind the Monroe Doctrine. Pat is spinning history and a reader would do well to go through some independent research before embracing the "facts" in this book.
-- mike (email@example.com), September 28, 1999.
Mike: I'm not sure about this, but I think that the U.S. declared war on both Japan and Germany after Pearl Harbor, rather than just Japan. We had no legitimate justification for declaring war on Germany except for Pres. Roosevelt's obsessive hatred for his competitor, A. Hitler.
-- cody (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 28, 1999.
Kath, Shell oil was supplying Germany for most of the War. the selling of arms to UK was called Lend Lease, I take it that you feel that we would have been better of just giving it away( is this a vestage of your latent wellfare statism ? Had UK a prime minister with a little foresight perhaps the Dunkirk debacle would never have taken place! Had the English and French been a little less vindictive after WWI Hitler might not have emerged.All during the war the US flew DAYLIGHT missions while the RAF flew at night. Guess who lost more aircraft and men? We are sick of playing big brother to generations of shortsighted and provencial Europeans and Pat B. speaks to our desire for the Fat, rich of Europe to take care of their own internal savages (Bosnia/Kosovo) and a withdrawal from Foreign entanglements is not such a bad idea! We are sick of playing patsy to European royal, Corporate and multinational interests. If Europe wants to play it's time they paid! Since Clinton and Bradley are both Rhoades lackies and Bush a 3rd generation Robberbaron ,I must vote reform.
-- Gravescounter (sick of@paying in blood.com), September 28, 1999.
I was still in diapers at the time, but my recollection of history is that Dolph declared war on us.
Maybe Rosy's obsessive hatred of Dolph had something to do with the fact that he was a butcher. He wrote Mein Kempf while in jail in the 30's, and he warned in print he would exterminate the Jews. This was not a civil war as in Bosnia. This was a monster who had to be destroyed before he turned on us. Even if we had declared war on him, which I don't believe happened, it would have been justifiable. Hitler had to be stopped and we were the only country that could pull it off.
Also, Pat's book does not take the position we shouldn't have stood up to Dolph; he is only quarreling about the timing. He doesn't think we were as ready as we could have been later.
-- mike (email@example.com), September 28, 1999.
Mike: I'll have to look it up but I think I read somewhere that we declared war on Germany and Japan simultaneously, despite the fact that Japan attacked us all on its own. It might have been better to let Germany and the Soviet Union destroy each other rather than our getting involved in another European war.
-- cody (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 28, 1999.
Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941. We then declared war on Germany. If Germany had not declared war on us in December 1941, we might have waited up to six months to declare war on them. Why Hitler chose to declare war on us so quickly is a mystery, but it's probably just as well that he did, because we were able to mobilize against him much more quickly that way.
-- History Buff (email@example.com), September 28, 1999.
Slightly OT -- I recently heard that Drudge was a big booster of Buchannan's. I don't have time to catch up with this stuff and was hoping that somebody could help fill me in. Thanks!
-- flora (***@__._), September 28, 1999.
Gravescounter - Before sounding off you should learn to spell!
If you read your History Books, you'll find that the U.S. of A was quite content to hold England's coat while she did the fighting! Hitler did declare war on the States first. You can look that up too if you like. By the way Pat Buchanan IS an idiot.
-- uncle sam (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 28, 1999.
Those of you who dislike Pat Buchanan - I have a question for you: Did you vote for Bill Clinton? Enough said.
-- Scarlett (email@example.com), September 28, 1999.
"I think Y2K is a hoax." - Pat Buchanan on Crossfire, Nov. 1998.
Our only hope is a libertarian, but unfortunately that party is unelectable, as the media and election committee refuse to allow them to take part in televised debates. Whoever said 'If voting could change the system it would be outlawed' may have got it right.
Note also that not just Shell, but duPont, Standard Oil (Rockefeller), Ford, US Steel (Carnegie), and several other American based corporations fueled and profited from the German war machine, even years after a declaration of war was enacted
-- a (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 28, 1999.
You are all absolutely right that I should read the book before commenting on it. I am not fond of Buchanan in the first place, feeling he is waa-ay too far right....and I am a conservative! Nevertheless, if he does indeed blame the holocaust on the British, then HE IS AN IDIOT! If I am wrong, well he is still an idiot but not for that reason. You cannot blame the actions of Hitler and those of his henchmen on someone else...that is tantamount to saying , "Well, the little gremlin was nasty," as you beat your little child. Hitler committed the atrocities , him and those under him, to blame somebody else ANYBODY ELSE for his actions is ludicrous and idiotic. No matter the provocation, you don't go around exterminating people.
-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), September 29, 1999.
I suggest all of you read 'A Man Called Intrepid'. It is the story of the head of the British Secret Service before and during WWII. It will open your eyes to a side of history that isn't taught.
-- RB (R@AR.LIST), September 29, 1999.
As a matter of fact, I do believe that Pat Buchanan seeks what is best for America. That's why so many in Washington hate him.
-- GA Russell (email@example.com), September 30, 1999.