"'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world," wrote Washington to his countrymen in his Farewell Address.
Aware that it was the alliance with France in 1778 that saved our Revolution, Washington did not oppose all alliances, just permanent ones. Jefferson, too, warned against "entangling alliances."
We are today relearning the lessons our Fathers taught us.
Turkey, a NATO ally of 50 years, whom we bailed out a dozen times with IMF loans, is holding up President Bush for $32 billion in cash and loan guarantees before Ankara will let U.S. troops transit the country.
Why are the Turks engaged in such naked extortion?
Cold national interests. Ninety percent of Turks oppose a U.S. war on Iraq, and the Turks want to be rewarded for signing on. They also want to be made whole from the last Gulf War, where they lost billions in commerce because of our crushing of Iraq.
Israel, recipient of $100 billion in U.S. aid, is demanding another $15 billion to hold our coat as we fight her war against Iraq. Yet Sharon dismisses Bush's plea to stop expanding the West Bank settlements that are at the heart of the Palestinian Intifada that so inflames the Arab world against us. And by the way, says Sharon, the United States should disarm Iran, Syria and Libya, after we finish with Iraq.
Consider the Saudis. In August 1990, President Bush sent the 82nd Airborne to protect the kingdom from an Iraqi army that had just invaded Kuwait. We built permanent U.S. bases there, costing billions. Now we are told by Crown Prince Abdullah that the bases cannot be used in a war with Iraq and that, without U.N. approval, this will be a "war of aggression."
Germany, whose freedom we defended for half a century, is now sabotaging the president's effort to unite the Security Council behind a U.S. resolution to authorize war to disarm Iraq. To save himself in last year's election, Chancellor Schroeder pandered to the anti-Americanism now widespread in his country.
France was twice liberated by the blood of U.S. soldiers whose remains lie in French graves. Yet, President Chirac today threatens to veto any U.N. resolution that would give Bush authority to send the grandsons of those U.S. soldiers to liberate the people of Iraq.
South Korea would not exist today had not tens of thousands of American soldiers made the supreme sacrifice in the war of 1950-53. Yet in last year's campaign, South Korea's new president also played the anti-American card, pledging to review the relationship between Seoul and Washington and the need for U.S. troops to remain on Korean soil.
When the crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons erupted, he helpfully offered to "mediate" between his defender, the United States, and his enemy, North Korea, which has thousands of artillery pieces on his northern border aimed at his capital city.
"We shall astonish the world with our ingratitude," said the Italian statesman Cavour. "The state is a cold monster," echoed DeGaulle, who ordered NATO out of Paris in 1966.
But to Americans enraged at this seeming ingratitude, consider our own record before we became a world power. Twelve years after the British defeated our enemies in the French and Indian War, American patriots were shooting down British soldiers on the Concord Road.
Washington wept with joy at the alliance with France in 1778, but one year after Yorktown, American diplomats were back-channeling the British to conclude a separate peace at the expense of France.
"Let us be grateful to the French for what they have done for us," said John Jay to Ben Franklin, "but let us think for ourselves. And, if need be, let us act for ourselves."
In 1812, we declared war on our Mother Country when she was in a death struggle with Napoleon. Young America was beholden to no one.
This is the world as it is, not as we sentimental Americans would wish it to be. When South Korea and Europe needed us, our troops were welcome, and they remain welcome as long as we wish to defend them, but please do not ask them to sacrifice their selfish interests in some higher American cause. Or be prepared to bribe them.
Can it still be unclear to President Bush that not only does the world not share his fear of Iraq, tens of millions of Europeans and Arabs fear and detest us even more? And if Uncle Sam wants their help in ousting Saddam, they will charge him an arm and a leg for it.
Come home, Sam, the war's over. Let our ungrateful dependents fend for themselves. They're not worth it, old man.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
MD-90, Pat Buchanan is one of the most xenophobic Americans in existence. Remember, this is a nut who wants to arm the Mexican border, simply becuase he doesn't like Mexicans.
What he writes should get exactly the credibility it deserves-absolutely none. He's a disgrace to the historical tolerance and good will that Americans have always shown throughout it's history. If you think he's something great, you're a fool.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1156 times:
Sure he deserves to be blatantly written off, MD-90. He's a bitter white man who thinks the world has giving him a raw deal. He's a xenophobe; he's a racist; he's anti-wman; he's an ultra-conservative's wet dream.
He's the last person who should speak for the United States.
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 13 Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1154 times:
I'll further my own comments and this discussion by saying Buchannan and Falwell are as fanatical in their beliefs and practises as Bin Laden and the other Islamic fundies. These are the American terrorists we need to watch out for.
Dg_pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 856 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1141 times:
To EVEN suggest two innocent citizens are the equivalent of Islamic fanatics, such as Bin Laden, who have killed THOUSANDS of people is sickening and just plain wrong. How dare you say that about anyone! What you said Ilyushin96M says a lot about YOU.
Radarbeam From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 1310 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1040 times:
Buchanan is a moron, an ultra-conservative jackass. Everything that comes out of this guy's mouth is garbage. "American Taliban" describes him very well.
DG_pilot, the American taliban anecdote is used to compare the mentality level of Buchanan, it has nothing to do with how many people died at the hands of the taliban. Stop acting like you don't know that.
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 13 Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 997 times:
Actually, yes, MD-90, I HAVE read the article. I've read lots of articles written by Buchanan, as a matter of fact. I'm glad people discount his BS heavily enough to not take him seriously as a presidential candidate.
You and many others ignore a very dangerous faction in our society. Maybe "American Taliban" is an inappropriate term for these maniacs, but rest assured, you wouldn't want any of them in a position of power. If that should happen, they would make what the current administration is doing to screw things up look like paddycakes, and there would be US citizens applying for assylum in any country they could get to just to get out of here.
As far as the whole age thing, I rarely take people in the 16-20 age group seriously, because for the most part, their life experience is limited to textbooks and trips with their families around the US and to foreign countries. How can you have a strong opinion about something if you haven't had any experience to back it up? A view of the world outside the US, as well as seeing our country through the eyes of others, is very enlightening, even sobering.
Tell me, what is YOUR take on Buchanan? Putting aside his ultra-conservative religious views, of course, which seem to be in line with your own. I can't believe anyone with any bit of intelligence would agree with his isolationist ideas. Thankfully, that's not where the world is heading.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 993 times:
I certainly hope that Buchanan never gets into a position of power. However, the US is being subject to shake-downs, slanders, and abuse of our soldiers from our "allies." There is no chance that we will go into isolationism. But it would not hurt to remind the world of what would happened if we did retreat.
If Europe had to fill the vacuum if the US withdrew, their generous social welfare systems would be out the door.
If the US told Turkey, "screw Iraq- we'll let France and Germany deal and screw your extortion racket- you get nothing", I would get a good laugh.
If the US actually left South Korea, they would have to become a military state using every last resource to guard against the North.
Part of me wishes we would withdraw from the rest of the world to spare ourselves the risk, expense, and indignities that we suffer defending ungrateful allies. However, I know that is not a realistic option.