Pat Buchanan: Might the Arabs Have a Point?

[Pryderi]

America’s standing in the Arab world could hardly be worse. And the questions the survey raises are these: Do we care? And, if we do, do not the Arabs have a point? Has not U.S. behavior in the Middle East lent credence to the view that our principal interests are Israel and oil, and, under Bush II, that we launched an invasion to dominate the region?

After all, before liberating Kuwait, Secretary of State Baker said the coming war was about “o-i-l.” And while we sent half a million troops to rescue that nation of 1.5 million, we sent none to Rwanda, where perhaps that many people were massacred.

If Kuwait did not sit on an underground sea of oil, would we have gone in? Is our military presence in the Mideast unrelated to its control of two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves?

If human rights is our goal, why have we not gone into Darfur, the real hellhole of human rights? If democracy is what we are fighting for, why did we not invade Cuba, a dictatorship, 90 miles away, far more hostile to America than Saddam’s Iraq, and where human rights have been abused for half a century? Saddam never hosted nuclear missiles targeted at U.S. cities.

http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_16/buchanan.html

Pat perplexes me at times.

[CJCRANE]

1. Good article, very logical and sensible nt

[wake.up.america]

5. I think the problem is that America projects itself as the saviour...

of democracy when in fact, its foreign policy is based solely on self-preservation (as is done in other countries). Internal policy is based on the same principle - self preservation and advancement for the ruling class. However, many believe the utterances of highy skilled spokesmen who try to project a concern of others by those in power.

Unfortunately, Bush has been the most blatant abuser of power.

[A Simple Game]

10. You are right.

Self-preservation, yes, but not for the Country.

Self-preservation indeed for the ruling class and their businesses.

[liberal N proud]

2. Why is this not the debate in this country instead of weather

supporting an illegal and immoral President is patriotic.

[chelsea0011]

3. Pat is a hardcore isolationist. He hates the US doing any nation building

I've always asked the question if the US did nothing aginst Saddam in his invasion of Kuwait would we just be buying oil from Iraq.

[Greeby]

4. It just shows how far we've gone

That a right-winger who doesn't deny the obvious when it's shoved in his face, is something to marvel at and celebrate

[happyslug]

6. Pat is a Catholic Conservative.

While Catholics tend to be Conservative on Sexual mores, they also tend to be liberal in the concept of WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO HELP YOUR FELLOW MAN? Greed is NOT a Catholic Doctrine. Thus while he is conservative about people being in "Their Place", he also believes in helping the less fortune. Thus the dilemma (Yes, Catholicism is NOT a Conservative Religion, through it is often Conservative in its Hierarchy and Sexual Mores).

[Richard D]

7. OK

[Brooklyn Michael]

9. My sentiments exactly....

[dusmcj]

8. he's in danger of being an independent thinker

who doesn't look for a group to join, and then sign up to mouth their agreed-to line. While independent thinkers were what America was built to support, we currently seem much more oriented to group membership and conformity with a collective. Hence we have a defective political system. If we were to demand that the parties represent us, rather than allowing a climate where they feel entitled to demand that we hew to their lines, we would be a healthier nation. Government, business and social institutions, including political parties, all exist solely to serve the people. Yet we forget that... Hence our surprise at someone breaking ranks with the groups whose nametags are ostensibly plastered on his forehead.