Very much the isolationist - he kept harping on the point (opposing Sharansky), that America was not attacked "because we love freedom", but rather its interventionist bent. In essence, he was arguing that intervention around the world was the cause of the terror, not the cure. Buchanan argues that trying to bring down the dictatorships or regimes in the middle east and elsewhere (in contract to Sharansky) will only bring on regimes that are worse and more hostile to the US. Thoughts ?

well, history hasn't really disputed Buchanan's statements.

I despise Buchanan, but I partially agree with him on this issue. The terrorists don't give a rat's ass about our freedom. However, the reasons they targeted us are a lot more complex than US interventionism.

Very much the isolationist - he kept harping on the point (opposing Sharansky), that America was not attacked "because we love freedom", but rather its interventionist bent. In essence, he was arguing that intervention around the world was the cause of the terror, not the cure. Buchanan argues that trying to bring down the dictatorships or regimes in the middle east and elsewhere (in contract to Sharansky) will only bring on regimes that are worse and more hostile to the US. Thoughts ?

I think he's right.

I can't believe anyone would accept that we went to Iraq for WMD's...or that Osama hates our freedom.

We need to get our nose out of other people business.

I despise Buchanan, but I partially agree with him on this issue. The terrorists don't give a rat's ass about our freedom. However, the reasons they targeted us are a lot more complex than US interventionism.

I don't even know who Buchanan is, but I agree with clintl, interventionism is one of the reasons why America is targeted - its just not the only one.

I think he's right.

I can't believe anyone would accept that we went to Iraq for WMD's...or that Osama hates our freedom.

We need to get our nose out of other people business.Why did we go into Iraq then?

EDIT: And I'm not disagreeing with you, but I wonder what your response would be.

Why did we go into Iraq then?

EDIT: And I'm not disagreeing with you, but I wonder what your response would be.

If I had to guess...to maintain a presence in the Middle East. Things is Saudi Arabia could turn at any moment.

There's also the oil factor, but I don't know enough about that to make a strong argument.

He's right. We should get our noses out of places like Venezuela and stop trying to see that a legitmately elected President is overthrown.

That may be the first thing I have heard him say that I agree with, but I agree with that 100%.

We are targeted because of the foreign policy of our government. It was much more convenient for the government to blame freedom, rather than itself. The last thing our government would want us to do is believe their interventionist policies of the past decades have any direct correlation to 9/11.

If I had to guess...to maintain a presence in the Middle East. Things is Saudi Arabia could turn at any moment.

There's also the oil factor, but I don't know enough about that to make a strong argument.Why would we want to maintain a presense in the middle east? As far as I can tell, prior to 1990, we had little presense in the middle east. (At least, relatively speaking in comparison to today's world)

It's obvious that we are protecting our energy resources, but what's changed that makes us want to be their physically?

And since we are putting the USA on the defensive again, let's ask a fair question about the Al Qeada. Why were they upset that we were protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq and protecting the Shia's and the Kurd's from the Baath party? I for one wouldn't call that "meddling". It certainly doesn't call for the bombing of the WTC, that's for sure. So, what does "meddling" mean on a scale comparable to the massive effort to protect people from Saddam Hussein or equal to killing thousands of people in the WTC?

Why would we want to maintain a presense in the middle east? As far as I can tell, prior to 1990, we had little presense in the middle east. (At least, relatively speaking in comparison to today's world)

Are you arguing for getting our military out of the region? I'm onboard with that. We can't get out of that area fast enough for me. Obviously, we're stuck with ownership in Iraq for now, but not one more day than we have to.

It's obvious that we are protecting our energy resources, but what's changed that makes us want to be their physically?

A desire to influence a majority of nations around the world that is never quenched.

Why were they upset that we were protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq and protecting the Shia's and the Kurd's from the Baath party?

I don't recall Al-Qaeda going on the record regarding that. What was said, and by whom?

So, what does "meddling" mean on a scale comparable to the massive effort to protect people from Saddam Hussein or equal to killing thousands of people in the WTC?

Those things had nothing to do with Saddam or Iraq. It had everything to do with Saudi Arabia from the beginning.

I agree with Robertson to a degree. The problem with that sort of doctrine is.....we have a vested interested in foreign economies. I wish Bush would just say that instead of the freedom crap he tries to snow the American people with.

Why would we want to maintain a presense in the middle east? As far as I can tell, prior to 1990, we had little presense in the middle east. (At least, relatively speaking in comparison to today's world)

bin Laden has been complaining about it since '91.

As far as why do we want a presence in the ME, I think you answer it with your next line...

It's obvious that we are protecting our energy resources, but what's changed that makes us want to be their physically?

Philosophy in the Admin.? Who knows. So we can have a presence in an instable area?

And since we are putting the USA on the defensive again, let's ask a fair question about the Al Qeada. Why were they upset that we were protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq and protecting the Shia's and the Kurd's from the Baath party? I for one wouldn't call that "meddling". It certainly doesn't call for the bombing of the WTC, that's for sure.

I think Osama can sum up just why he's so angry here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/

So, what does "meddling" mean on a scale comparable to the massive effort to protect people from Saddam Hussein or equal to killing thousands of people in the WTC?

Do you believe that we went to Iraq because Saddam Hussein treated his people poorly? Or that he had anything to do with 9/11?

TIA

US meddling in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations started a long, long time before 1990, and included such activities as CIA-sponsored coups overthrowing democratically-elected governments in Iran and Pakistan, and replacing them with dictatorships. Not to mention solid US support over the years for the Saudi government, which always ends up near the top of any list of most repressive governments in the world.

And since when is another nation's energy resources "ours"? That kind of thinking alone is justification enough for them to detest us.

Philosophy in the Admin.? Who knows. So we can have a presence in an instable area?
But what made it so unstable that we had to be there if not Saddam Hussein? And why are the Al Qeada bombing us if not because of our presence in Saudi Arabia? That's what's changed since 1991.

That's how you link Al Qaeda and Iraq.

US meddling in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations started a long, long time before 1990, and included such activities as CIA-sponsored coups overthrowing democratically-elected governments in Iran and Pakistan, and replacing them with dictatorships. Not to mention solid US support over the years for the Saudi government, which always ends up near the top of any list of most repressive governments in the world.
Send the memo to Osama Bin Laden, cause he liked us in the 80's.

And since when is another nation's energy resources "ours"? That kind of thinking alone is justification enough for them to detest us.
Since when is trading an un-Godly ammount of money via TRADE for the rights to oil that you purchased stealing? Especially since the proper owners got paid what they asked for and the proper buyers got what they asked for?

Send the memo to Osama Bin Laden, cause he liked us in the 80's.

This is debatable. More likely, it was just a means to an end.


Since when is trading an un-Godly ammount of money via TRADE for the rights to oil that you purchased stealing? Especially since the proper owners got paid what they asked for and the proper buyers got what they asked for?

It is the supporting of any regime that is "friendly" to us, regardless of what they do to their people. We don't just buy oil. We send our military over. Every new day that we keep US military forces on Saudi soil brings recruits into terrorist causes. Is it really worth it? Saudi Arabia doesn't even allow women to vote, and that is disregarding that they (from what I have read) rarely get around to allowing any elections anyway. We put our lot in with who helps us politically, rather than who might embody the values that we pretend to demand.

Send the memo to Osama Bin Laden, cause he liked us in the 80's.

We all know that's because what the Soviets were doing in Afghanistan was a problem of greater urgency to him. Just like the US didn't think Saddam was that bad a guy when he invaded Iran.


Since when is trading an un-Godly ammount of money via TRADE for the rights to oil that you purchased stealing? Especially since the proper owners got paid what they asked for and the proper buyers got what they asked for?

It's not ours until we buy it.

It's not ours until we buy it.
I agree. But it's not stolen either.

FWIW, after the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, whether it was properly advertised to Al Qaeda recruits or not, but we intentionally pushed Saudi troop strenght back to pre-1990 level. (training advisors only). The rest of the long-term US forces were moved to Qatar. A place I don't think any terrorist will likely take up arms over.

So once the foreign terrorists are quelled in Iraq (it will happen eventually) we will see a very different Middle East. An Iraq that is not an immediate US/Western threat and a Saudi Arabia free of western "occupation".

Both sides win something. Too bad we couldn't have negotiated instead of pay for it all with human life. But you can't negotiate with terrorists, at least not fairly (Ask France and Spain how their terror negotiations paid off). But you can negotiate with democratic run states. So there are legitimate reasons for pushing for freedom in the Middle East.

It's not ours until we buy it.

It is certainly easier to maintain access to it if you convince a major nation that it needs you to protect it...and if you can manipulate matters in other nations to go your way. I certainly need a refresher course in the history of the Middle East, but I am thinking that at least two revolutions in that region were tossing out governments that came into power through manipulation by the West.

This is debatable. More likely, it was just a means to an end.
Of course. But after 1990, I think history will show that Bin Laden became very angry at Saudi Arabia for allowing "infadels" to "save" Mecca instead of Muslims warriors such as Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. He didn't have a problem with the USA in Afghanistan because we were indirectly supporting him to fight communism. It is very unrealstic to think that a Jihad in 1990 Iraq would have been anything but a horrible failure.

We didn't really like Bin Laden either in the 1980's, but it was a means to an end. Everybody's got their priorities. Oh, the tangled webs we weave.

Didnt we just essentially hand Iraq over to Iran?

If you have a better idea than the people of Iraq, I'm sure they will be all ears. :)

Getting back to an earlier question of "Why did we go into Iraq?"

Well, the answer is really because that was the plan. The administration had started making plans to move into Iraq pretty much from Day 1 (see Woodward's book on the Bush administration or any number of articles pre 9/11). The Pentagon had started diverting resources from terrorism to Iraq because they wanted to test the theory that a democratic Iraq would start the domino theory in the Middle East. Iraq was chosen because it was the easiest sell (who wouldn't want to see Hussein gone?) and had arguably the weakest military.

Unfortunately, Al Qaeda struck and the plans got put on hold for a while. But a year later, the administration used terrorism and WMD as the reason to go into Iraq. Intellectually dishonest? Yep. But it was the easiest way to sell the war (so says Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz).

I hope the plan works -- I hope a democratic or pseudo-democratic Iraq does lend some stability to the Middle East. I don't think it will, but I hope so, for purely selfish reasons (I'd like some of the friends I have over there to make it back safely).

So once the foreign terrorists are quelled in Iraq (it will happen eventually) we will see a very different Middle East. An Iraq that is not an immediate US/Western threat and a Saudi Arabia free of western "occupation".

Both sides win something. Too bad we couldn't have negotiated instead of pay for it all with human life. But you can't negotiate with terrorists, at least not fairly (Ask France and Spain how their terror negotiations paid off). But you can negotiate with democratic run states. So there are legitimate reasons for pushing for freedom in the Middle East.

Blaming the insurgency on "foreign terrorists" is a gross oversimplification. Sure, they're there, but the reality is that Iraq is in a state of civil war (Sunnis vs. Shiites and Kurds). If nothing else, the fact that the Sunnis barely participated in the elections should have reinforced that fact. The Shiites and Kurds are just letting the US do most of the fighting for them.

If you think the people opposed to the war are not supportive of the goal of a free, democratic Middle East, you are dead wrong. We were for that all along. We just think the methods being used are wrong, and are unlikely to be successful.

Blaming the insurgency on "foreign terrorists" is a gross oversimplification. Sure, they're there, but the reality is that Iraq is in a state of civil war (Sunnis vs. Shiites and Kurds). If nothing else, the fact that the Sunnis barely participated in the elections should have reinforced that fact. The Shiites and Kurds are just letting the US do most of the fighting for them.

If you think the people opposed to the war are not supportive of the goal of a free, democratic Middle East, you are dead wrong. We were for that all along. We just think the methods being used are wrong, and are unlikely to be successful.
I would suggest that Iraq being in a state of civil war is a gross oversimplification as well and just as inaccurate.

The method that you find so wrong is the Bush Administration. You would prefer it be done by Clinton or Gore. I understand that. But Bush in here and they are not.

Everybody's got their priorities. Oh, the tangled webs we weave.

Hence the problems. The only way to break the chain is to stop trying to pick sides in every event that happens in the world. We support some oppresive regimes because they give us what we want, but turn against those who don't play ball with us. History doesn't say we hate tyranny. Not that China is the same, but we pretend to care about human rights while importing a large amount of goods from a nation that ran over protestors with tanks. We have no moral superiority today.

I guess my question would be, so what now? Essentially, it seems people are blaming the acts of Ford, Carter and Reagan for the issues at hand today in the middle east. First, everything each of them did was reactionary to other actions by Iran/Iraq/Lebanon... But even if it wasn't, you guys think we can just send a nice hallmark card to Iran, Syria, Saddam, and Al Qaeda saying "Oops, our bad. We promise we won't interfere down the road".

Give me a break. Whether you want to blame the US for reacting to terror acts, hostage taking and attacks on military forces in the 70s and 80s or not, the fact is we are at a certain step with regards to middle east right now. Our options are to try and change the threat that the Middle East poses or pull everyone out and be like Israel trying to play defense on thousands of ports and an essentially open border in the South (that will not change under any president from either party). This means that we will occassionally have attacks like 9-11 and just adjust to their occurances as part of our daily life.

So, Pat Buchanon's thoughts are basically akin to closing the barn door once the horses have already run out. Bush didn't create this threat, but he has a real chance to start minimizing the danger it poses to the US. At this point, pulling out is not going to suddenly make Al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorists in the middle east suddenly like us. Also, why have groups like Al Qaeda threatened and even tried to attacked France and Germany over the past decade? If there is a blueprint for being isolationist, I don't know how you could get anymore like France. Yet, they are certainly no safer than us at this stage.

Weren't the problems with Iran post-revolution because of our support of the pre-revolution government that was horrible? It's only natural (in my mind) to expect to be the target of rage after helping some dirtbag government try to stay in power when its people preferred otherwise.

Hence the problems. The only way to break the chain is to stop trying to pick sides in every event that happens in the world.
I think if you really believe that, then you would understand the question of "Why Iraq and not Sudan?"

In the long run, we can only do so much, and the President has an obligation to be more concerned about Americans than anyone else.

But the fact still remains that as far as super powers in world history, we have done more good for this planet than all the other super powers combined. And the ammount of bad/evil that we do doesn't hold a candle to any one of the past super powers. I'm not trying to get all sentimental here, but we really need to understand that for everything we desire, we still trade a commodity.

In the case of Iraq, for long-term stabilty, we are offering freedom to their people. If I were in Iraq, I'd take that deal, and most, apparently around 75-85% of Iraqi's, agree.

This means that we will occassionally have attacks like 9-11 and just adjust to their occurances as part of our daily life.

The Bush Administration has already told us that we should expect that. So, if we are told to expect that, why should we fear pulling back? The threat of future terror attacks is still there. The color warning system is on the same color it was when it was created. By their very own system, we are not safer today than we were 3 years ago. Are you saying it would immediately go orange (or worse) if we came home?

So, Pat Buchanon's thoughts are basically akin to closing the barn door once the horses have already run out.

Doesn't somebody have to do it? Pretending that we have to continue to let it happen ad infinitum, just because we did in the past, is the better solution? We might one day have some more horses in this barn, but we should just let them run out the doors too instead of putting a lock on it?

Bush didn't create this threat, but he has a real chance to start minimizing the danger it poses to the US. At this point, pulling out is not going to suddenly make Al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorists in the middle east suddenly like us.

Pulling out at any point may prove disastrous anyway. Personally, I don't foresee the people of Iraq protecting themselves. If we do ever pull out, I wouldn't be surprised to see civil war break out (perhaps initiated by neighboring nations) or an invasion. I don't want it to happen, though, because the world will be a much more dangerous place then than it was with Saddam running that place.

Also, why have groups like Al Qaeda threatened and even tried to attacked France and Germany over the past decade?

I'm not sure about that, but there is a history of problems between Islamic people and Christians from Europe that goes back hundreds and hundreds of years. It may just be possible that Al-Qaeda considers itself as Islamic warriors and wouldn't be beyond settling scores from the middle ages if they consider themselves to be in a sufficient position of power. At this point in history, an attack against European "Christian" nations would not be un-provoked from an Islamic point of view, would it?

I think if you really believe that, then you would understand the question of "Why Iraq and not Sudan?"

There was an axe to grind with Saddam. He was a pain in the ass who snubbed his nose at a nation that once showed him favor. He wanted to see the father of our current President dead. Instead of playing ball, he continued to be a pest despite having little resources to do so. Unable to get him to go away through relatively civil measures, we decided to go in and take him. There are obvious reasons that the current administration would choose to go after Iraq for regime change before Sudan. After all, Sudan expelled Osama for us, which won them some points.

But the fact still remains that as far as super powers in world history, we have done more good for this planet than all the other super powers combined.

This is like saying your company is golden simply because you exceed the industry norms by a few points. We should expect everyone, domestic and abroad, to accept our faults because we feel we have fewer than most powerful nations have had?

In the case of Iraq, for long-term stabilty, we are offering freedom to their people. If I were in Iraq, I'd take that deal, and most, apparently around 75-85% of Iraqi's, agree.

You won't find me arguing against the elections. I doubt many would, at least here. I'm not of the opinion that the ends always justify the means, though, and that is where some of the differences begin.

I guess my question would be, so what now? Essentially, it seems people are blaming the acts of Ford, Carter and Reagan for the issues at hand today in the middle east. First, everything each of them did was reactionary to other actions by Iran/Iraq/Lebanon... But even if it wasn't, you guys think we can just send a nice hallmark card to Iran, Syria, Saddam, and Al Qaeda saying "Oops, our bad. We promise we won't interfere down the road".


The Europeans between World War I and World War II are the ones really at fault for screwing up the Middle East (although the US is not entirely innocent).

The Bush Administration has already told us that we should expect that. So, if we are told to expect that, why should we fear pulling back? The threat of future terror attacks is still there. The color warning system is on the same color it was when it was created. By their very own system, we are not safer today than we were 3 years ago. Are you saying it would immediately go orange (or worse) if we came home?
This is like saying because we won't be able to graduate every kid in a failing school with any plan, we shouldn't even try. We are always at risk, but the risk is substantially lower if terrorists are focusing all their efforts on Iraq (now) and we eventually get a more representative form of government in Iraq and Afghanistan (future).

Doesn't somebody have to do it? Pretending that we have to continue to let it happen ad infinitum, just because we did in the past, is the better solution? We might one day have some more horses in this barn, but we should just let them run out the doors too instead of putting a lock on it?
Again, this is the situation we are in right now. Would it be great if we could ask all the extremist muslims why they hate us and go back in time and change it? Sure, but I don't even know if that would make much of a difference. The reality is that they have made it their life's goal to disrupt America. Now, whether or not we want to admit that, it is something we have to deal with. And taking our ball and going home would simply embolden them even more. As you say here...

Pulling out at any point may prove disastrous anyway.

there is a history of problems between Islamic people and Christians from Europe that goes back hundreds and hundreds of years. It may just be possible that Al-Qaeda considers itself as Islamic warriors and wouldn't be beyond settling scores from the middle ages if they consider themselves to be in a sufficient position of power.
So, to summarize, what the US is doing right now in helping to create a representative government in Iraq is wrong. But if the US pulled out right now, it would be disasterous and also wrong. Also, even if the US found a way to "atone" in the eyes of Al Qaeda for actions in the past few decades, it probably wouldn't matter in your opinion because they are currently holding grudges against Europe over hundreds of years and consider themselves "Islamic warriors".

I don't suppose there is any action the US can take at this point that would make you happy, correct?

I never said elections or democracy in Iraq were wrong, Arlie. Please tell me where I did, because it must have been a mistake. I have problems with when and why we went there, but the damage has been done and we have to own it now (unfortunately). It may all be a waste of time and money if the place falls apart once we leave, or a money pit if we have to stay there indefinitely to keep them safe. We do not yet know which path we'll be stuck with.

I don't care whether Al-Qaeda wants to blow up things in Europe or not. You were asking why they would target Spain or France, and I offered a possible explanation. It may not even be the truth. If Al-Qaeda has a religious grudge against Europe for the Crusades, it has absolutely nothing to do with me.

The US can, from this day forward, stop trying to prop up governments that obviously do not share our values. We need to pick allies based on shared values, rather than shared strategic interests. That is what would make me happy going forward. Obviously we are stuck holding the bag for all the previous mistakes, but things won't improve if we just keep repeating those mistakes. I also cannot understand why we import so many products from China, with the things they have done (and will do) to their people, but we cannot even have a cigar from Cuba. We are willing to give China a most-favored-nation status, and 'normalize' relations with Vietnam, but again we must take a hardline stance against that terrible threatening nation of Cuba. It would make me happy to see that embargo finally lifted.

I never said elections or democracy in Iraq were wrong, Arlie. Please tell me where I did, because it must have been a mistake.
You stated that the military effort in Iraq was wrong and that the troops should be pulled from Iraq right now. Both of these stances would have prevented an election in Iraq. My original quote was that it appeared you believed:
what the US is doing right now in helping to create a representative government in Iraq is wrong.
And, given your above stances, I think that's a pretty fair statement. If you don't think the US should have gone into Iraq in the first place and now feel they should have pulled out ASAP, that is in direct opposition to the effort it took by the US to achieve the elections in Iraq.

I have problems with when and why we went there, but the damage has been done and we have to own it now (unfortunately). It may all be a waste of time and money if the place falls apart once we leave, or a money pit if we have to stay there indefinitely to keep them safe. We do not yet know which path we'll be stuck with.
But it's just as likely that Iraq will be less of a threat to US interests than under Saddam and the Middle East will now have two examples of free governments in the region that could impact Iran, Syria and the Saudis. I'm guessing here, but I would be willing to wager that you would not have predicted the afghan elections to go as well as they did or to have over 60% turnout with little violence on the Iraq election. So, why is it a stretch to think that you could be wrong here as well?

I don't care whether Al-Qaeda wants to blow up things in Europe or not. You were asking why they would target Spain or France, and I offered a possible explanation.
And, FWIW, I think you are right. But this again shows the mentaility of what we are dealing with. These are people that hold grudges for centuries and are more against a way of life than any specific administration. It's very difficult to deal with that stance in a diplomatic manner.

The US can, from this day forward, stop trying to prop up governments that obviously do not share our values. We need to pick allies based on shared values, rather than shared strategic interests. That is what would make me happy going forward.
But that's simply not realistic. In the 70s, 80s and 90s, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton all made foreign policy decisions based on the strategic interests of the US. It was a major risk to allow the Ayatolas to control a large % of the world's oil in the 70s and 80s and conquere the middle east. It was also a huge national security problem to allow Saddam to control Kuwait and potentially parts of Saudi Arabia in the early 90s. To say we should have simply not gotten involved and risked the solvency of our national energy sources and the potential creation of a rogue superpower in the middle east is being incredibly nieve to the interests of the US.

By this logic, we should not have joined with Russia (who certainly did not "share our values") to defeat Hitler.

Obviously we are stuck holding the bag for all the previous mistakes, but things won't improve if we just keep repeating those mistakes. I also cannot understand why we import so many products from China, with the things they have done (and will do) to their people, but we cannot even have a cigar from Cuba. We are willing to give China a most-favored-nation status, and 'normalize' relations with Vietnam, but again we must take a hardline stance against that terrible threatening nation of Cuba. It would make me happy to see that embargo finally lifted.
Look at the state of China in the 70s and 80s and where it is today. Then do the same with Cuba. While China is certainly not a beacon of freedom in the world, they have completely changed many aspects of their economic structure primarily due to the efforts of the US. Maybe one day Cuba will make a similar effort, but until then I see no reason to change our stance.

If we were not dependent on any other nation for any reason, had the ability to deflect any outside attack, had strong borders and cared little about Israel and our allies in Europe, your stance may have a chance at working. However, your view does not match the reality of the world today.

Reading comprehension check. I said this:

Are you arguing for getting our military out of the region? I'm onboard with that. We can't get out of that area fast enough for me. Obviously, we're stuck with ownership in Iraq for now, but not one more day than we have to.

I don't think those sentences mean what you think they do.

You said...

If you don't think the US should have gone into Iraq in the first place and now feel they should have pulled out ASAP, that is in direct opposition to the effort it took by the US to achieve the elections in Iraq.

But this is what I said...

I have problems with when and why we went there, but the damage has been done and we have to own it now (unfortunately).

This means I have a problem with when we did it (before we finished rounding up Al-Qaeda leadership) and the reasons that were used to justify it (such as WMDs that were never found or attacking the Kurds, which I don't think was considered such a big deal back when it happened).

I don't know what was so difficult to understand about those statements, but apparently I did not make them clear enough for you.

To say we should have simply not gotten involved and risked the solvency of our national energy sources and the potential creation of a rogue superpower in the middle east is being incredibly nieve to the interests of the US.

If it spurred creation of alternative fueled vehicles, we would be a lot better off today than we are. We could all have more efficient vehicles, but the incentive to produce them has not been there. Only now are they really beginning to catch on. We get about 21% of our oil from the Middle East, and with the right incentive we might have been able to learn to live without it.

If we were not dependent on any other nation for any reason, had the ability to deflect any outside attack, had strong borders and cared little about Israel and our allies in Europe, your stance may have a chance at working. However, your view does not match the reality of the world today.

We have the military and technology to detect attempts to get us and convince them to reconsider. We could strengthen our borders if we had the will to do so. We just prefer to do other things instead.

Look at the state of China in the 70s and 80s and where it is today. Then do the same with Cuba. While China is certainly not a beacon of freedom in the world, they have completely changed many aspects of their economic structure primarily due to the efforts of the US. Maybe one day Cuba will make a similar effort, but until then I see no reason to change our stance.


Economics have nothing to do with our activities in Cuba. Our business community is desperate to get into Cuba--the Canadians and Europeans are way ahead of the game in terms of economic development and investment in Cuba. It's amazing how one special-interest group (the Cuban-American community) has held our foreign policy hostage, much to the detriment of our economic interests...

I think he's right.

I can't believe anyone would accept that we went to Iraq for WMD's...or that Osama hates our freedom.

We need to get our nose out of other people business.
Agreed.

I can't believe it, but I actually agree with Pat Buchannan.

The United States, Isreal, and the West are all convenient scape goats Bin Laden can use to stir up the masses and garner support for his real goal, to unit the Arab Nation under the Caliphate. He hates the Royal Saud family and wants them gone. He and his buddy Zawihiri have conspired to kill Hosni Mubarek, shoot, Zawihiri did time in Egyptian prison for conspiring to kill Anwar Sadat. Their ultimate aim is to eliminate secular and/or corrupt governments and establish strict Islamic states under sharia law like the Taliban had. The United States has security arrangements with many of these countries to keep the oil flowing, therefore we are the biggest obstruction to the cause, therefore we are enemy number one.

Look at Afghanistan. Bin Laden succeeded throwing out the USSR eventually leading to the Taliban setting up shop. That's his model for success and it's being done in Iraq. It's really not about the US. Oh he really wants us out of the Middle East, but if the US simply packed up and left the entire region he's start the real work of fomenting revolution in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, even quite possibly extending out to Pakistan to get their nukes.

US intervention helped spur this along by passively allowing corruption to grow in Saudi Arabia, but our intervention is not the cause of what al Qaeda aims to do, just a threat to it.

I can't believe it, but I actually agree with Pat Buchannan.

I'm not convinced we went into Iraq for the right reasons, but before we adopt an isolationist policy, we should look to the recent past.

In the early stages of World War II we were isolationists and allowed Germany to overrun Europe, and Japan to overrun Asia before we finally reacted. There were a lot of people who died when arguably, had the US joined the war sooner, this could have been prevented.

When the Soviet Union started aggressively expanding after WWII, they arguably would have taken over a large part of the east, had we not intervened indirectly, and ultimately bankrupted them via an arms race.

And finally, like it or not, we have a dependence on Mideastern oil. There are a lot of people in the Mideast who would like nothing better than to cut the US off from oil supplies even at a loss of $$. So to some extent, we need to keep some stokes in the fire to protect those interests.

Not arguing about Iraq - I don't think we went in for honest, open reasons there - but just providing a history reminder before we all jump on the isolationist bandwagon.