Pat Buchanan Quotes on Bush's Foreign Policy

[financeguy]

Iraq was a decaying regime rotten to the core, it was weak and could be toppled easily

In that case, one wonders why they had to bomb the place back to the stone age.

Election contributions from arms manufacturers, I guess.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

My problem isn't so much that Iraq has a democracy, it's moreso the fact that the U.S. felt the need to enforce one on them, which kinda defeats the purpose of democracy to begin with. If they want a democracy, great, but they should've been the ones to decide on that, not us.

Strange logic...how exactly were Iraqis supposed to decide they wanted democracy under the former totalitarian regime? By marching down the street and getting gunned down?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Strange logic...how exactly were Iraqis supposed to decide they wanted democracy under the former totalitarian regime? By marching down the street and getting gunned down?

I second that. They were governed by a brutal regime that murdered whoever disagreed with what they stood for. Saddam would never wake up one morning and say, "let's be a democracy, let's give women rights, let's stop killing innocent people, let's stop raping women in front of their husbands."

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

If people really want something, they will fight for it, even if it means risking their lives in the process. Americans were willing to risk their lives in order to make America a democratic nation-why wouldn't other people from other nations be able to do the same?

Regardless, we got rid of Saddam for them. Fine. I don't think they have too much of a problem with that act in and of itself, because it's pretty obvious they weren't happy under a dictatorship, and appreciate our help. But we still should've let them and them alone decide what government they wanted in place of a dictatorship, be it a democracy or be it something else. We can help rebuild the country and all that good stuff, but we should've completely stayed out of the formation of their new government, because history has shown that when one nation tries to set up a government for another nation, it usually doesn't produce good results, the people of the nation the government's being set up for start to eventually feel like a whole other way of living is being forced upon them, and that generally tends to piss people off.

Angela

 

[A_Wanderer]

They tried that and America and the world community didn't do anything for them. They allowed the Iraqi's to bring in attack choppers to supress the uprising and that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, add to that the ongoing cost of sanctions throughout the 1990's, the distrust by many Shiites towards the US and you have the price of inaction or more precicely the cost of telling people to take action and then not backing up your words with actions.

The US is not involved in picking the new government, what is going on now is Iraqi parties negotiating with other Iraqi parties to gain the majority ~ this is Iraqi democracy in action. With the Kurds holding the balance of power it ensures that something such as Sharia law which is unpopular among many will not come into being.

Of course we could go down the other track, the very threat of political Islam taking hold means that we should support brutal dictators who acheive our goals, fuck the brown folk because they cannot handle democracy ~ they don't deserve it like us enlightened people.

 

[paulrg]

Being brutally honest I don't believe democracy is the answer to all evils. In every democracy far too many people vote who are completely ill-equipped to determine their leader. Soem vote for the best hair, others the best suit, some for the one with the most pleasant TV voice. In the west we have coach potato morons, some of whom will get up off the arses to tick a box nominating a Bush or a Blair, a Kerry or a Chirac, who, lets face it, are not intellectually fit for the role - better examples of leaders exist in both the US and the UK. Only the don't want the job or wouldn't stand up to media scrutiny of their past lives. In the recent Afghan elections I watched shepherds turn up to vote who couldn't read, didn't have the foggiest who the candidates were let alone what they stood for and, as one put it, placed their trust in Allah to guide their hand to tick the best box.

But then if not democracy, what? A good benevolent dictatorship?

I just get tired of hearing the west preaching democracy as a cure-all utopian recipe for world peace.

 

[verte76]

I'm about to fall out of my chair. I can't believe I'm agreeing with everything Buchanan says. Prior to this the only thing I had in common with this guy was the kind of church we both go to on Sunday, he's Catholic like me.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Democracy is not the be all and end all ~ there are plenty of examples where the will of the majority lends itself to evil, the other portion of this is liberty ~ the rights of the individual that are protected by law, these are the cornerstones of the least bad form of government.

I think that Churchill summed it up very nicely, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried".

 

[drhark]

Buchanan is an arch conservative. He is also isolationist on foreign policy. He makes some valid points, worth arguing. I disagree with him on Iraq. He is, however, even more dead wrong to assume that if Israel pulls out of the occupied territories there will be peace.

 

[drhark]

I'll admit we all play the "gotcha" game where we bring up an example of someone from the other side who agrees with us to prove we're right. It's fallacious.