Buchanan: Get out of Russia's face

[SirNitram]

Is Kast's 9/11 argument, literally, 'Americans are big stupid complacent retards, who couldn't notice the Oklahoma City Building being annihilated, and thus didn't think about terrorism'?

Is your argument (and those of others on this board) literally that the United States thought the same way about terrorism before 9/11 as they did after?

Nice evasion.

As I said, the largest recurring issue on the foreign policy agenda prior to 9/11 was humanitarian aid. We were concerned with failed states, civil wars close to Europe, and, to a much more limited extent, Saddam Hussein and the Rise of China. After 9/11, the United States became fixated on the Middle East to a much greater degree.

Ah, so it's nothing to do with terrorism. It's the Middle East, by your argument.

[Axis Kast]

Nice evasion.

I argue that 9/11 produced a sea-change in American thinking about the need for security to trump convenience, as well as the kinds of threats about which we had to worry.

Whether you chalk it up to ignorance, complacency, or anything else is really immaterial. I don't know quite why you are seizing on it.

Ah, so it's nothing to do with terrorism. It's the Middle East, by your argument.

And the terrorism of 9/11 was the immediate spark for that shift in gears, without which we would have continued devoting ourselves more completely to other issues and concerns.

[SirNitram]

Nice evasion.

I argue that 9/11 produced a sea-change in American thinking about the need for security to trump convenience, as well as the kinds of threats about which we had to worry.

Whether you chalk it up to ignorance, complacency, or anything else is really immaterial. I don't know quite why you are seizing on it.

It's just interesting to compare you arguing how blind and stupid America as a whole is, and yet at the same time, insisting it should expand across the globe. It's a theory which explains, among other things, the entire Bush Administration, the subsidizing of corn farmers to produce stuff that makes the health of Americans worse, and the movie Biodome, but still, an interesting juxtaposition with your neocon/psudeo-imperialist arguments.

Ah, so it's nothing to do with terrorism. It's the Middle East, by your argument.

And the terrorism of 9/11 was the immediate spark for that shift in gears, without which we would have continued devoting ourselves more completely to other issues and concerns.

What 'shift in gears'? America had been meddling in the Middle East long before it. Hell, the example of domestic terror I cited, Oklahoma City, was blamed on the evil Muslims and Middle East before the sketches were released by the FBI.

"The betting here is on Middle East terrorists," declared CBS News' Jim Stewart just hours after the blast (4/19/95).

"The fact that it was such a powerful bomb in Oklahoma City immediately drew investigators to consider deadly parallels that all have roots in the Middle East," ABC's John McWethy proclaimed the same day(4/19/95).

"`It has every single earmark of the Islamic car-bombers of the Middle East,' wrote syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer (Chicago Tribune, 4/21/95).

"Whatever we are doing to destroy Mideast terrorism, the chief terrorist threat against Americans, has not been working," declared the New York Times' A.M. Rosenthal (4/21/95).

[Patrick Degan]

You yammer at every opportunity the mantra that "September 11th changed everything". The only thing it changed was the skyline of Manhattan. The rest of the world has been grappling with terrorism for decades.

There was never the sense of urgency – especially in the United States – that was felt after 9/11. It provoked a conceptual revolution. Before 9/11, the big problem was humanitarian missions. Afterward, it was terrorism.

Bullshit. Britain has dealt with Irish terrorism for decades, Europe with Muslim and Marxist terrorism, and Israel with Palestinian terrorism also for decades. Furthermore, the Clinton administration had antiterror programmes in place and made recommendations to the successor administration which were ignored. The only "lack of urgency" which allowed 9-11 to occur was when a certain stupid talking chimp continued his fishing holiday even after getting a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.".

No, September 11th was a spectacular example of incompetence on our part in ignoring every warning sign offered up that the particular plot was in progress.

Red herring.

Most amusing coming from the man so desperately attempting to derail a thread about Russia so he can again stand on his 9-11 soapbox.

You do not actually deny that September 11th was a spectacular example of blowback. You are merely trying to dishonestly make it seem as if I somehow said something wrong or incorrect.

I know you believe you have a cogent point somewhere in that drivel of yours. The very existence of Al-Qaeda was blowback. 9-11 on the other hand remains not an example of blowback but incompetence.

Which nobody on this board is arguing for, actually.

It sure sounds like what people are advocating, when they sing the praises of Ron Paul and pontificate about how the world would be a so-much-more-peaceful place if only we didn’t do this or that particular thing that’s so insulting or degrading or upsetting to somebody somewhere.

Acknowledging where Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are actually making cogent arguments on particular issues is not the same thing as endorsing wholesale isolationism. You are the only person putting up that dishonest strawman. Four-plus years and you haven't learned a single new trick, have you Axi?

I agree that the United States needs to revamp its public diplomacy. I agree that it needs to reconsider its priorities and restate them. I disagree that we can ultimately avoid policies that will have severe blowback.

Why? You constantly float the idea that this must be the inevitable consequence of U.S. policy but, as always, you support the argument with nothing more than your assertion that it must do.

Talk about a misreading of history. Japan invaded China. The United States imposed an embargo on oil and all materials which could be used for warmaking purposes and that was the basis of Japan's decision to attack the United States.

In the period before the embargo, Japan put much greater weight on American activity in China than did Americans themselves. What was a sideshow for Washington was an affront to Japan.

And yet before they were actually launching wars of conquest and being denied their purchase of oil to fuel their war machine the Japanese didn't make anything of this alleged "affront" for years. No, Axi, the change of attitude came with the rising of the Kodo Party and Japan's militarisation.

I also find it interesting that you yourself have just pointed to an example in which the United States took reasonable action in response to events occuring far from our shores that resulted in bringing an attack upon us.

Ah, because it was somehow our fault the Japanese decided to launch a general war to support their ongoing war of conquest in China? We had another imbecile who tried floating that nonsense here a few months ago and got curbstomped roundly for it. Keep up your latest stupidities and you'll be getting the same treatment very soon.

[K. A. Pital]

Kast seriously thinks that the US needs Ukraine? That must be the most ridiculous thing I heard in years. The US is using Ukraine and Poland to create hurdles between Russia and Western Europe (the part of EU which is capable of making more or less independent decisions like Germany and France, and who have the cash to pay for Russian resources). That's all.

Yes, that might be the US national interest, if perpetual global domination is it.

But we've been over this before, the costs of such behaviour might outweigh any possible benefits.

[Axis Kast]

. Britain has dealt with Irish terrorism for decades, Europe with Muslim and Marxist terrorism, and Israel with Palestinian terrorism also for decades. [/quote]

And yet, in the United States, Bill Clinton’s blowjob was still more important.

Most amusing coming from the man so desperately attempting to derail a thread about Russia so he can again stand on his 9-11 soapbox.

Actually, it was you and Sir Nitram who began making posts that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original thread topic.

I know you believe you have a cogent point somewhere in that drivel of yours. The very existence of Al-Qaeda was blowback. 9-11 on the other hand remains not an example of blowback but incompetence.

This is you being dishonest and stupid in a frantic effort to discredit me. Big surprise.

Acknowledging where Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are actually making cogent arguments on particular issues is not the same thing as endorsing wholesale isolationism. You are the only person putting up that dishonest strawman. Four-plus years and you haven't learned a single new trick, have you Axi?

The only cogent argument that Ron Paul had was that history matters. Serious foreign policy “rollback” is impossible.

The issue of China prior to World War II is the example you seek of how blowback is always possible.

And yet before they were actually launching wars of conquest and being denied their purchase of oil to fuel their war machine the Japanese didn't make anything of this alleged "affront" for years. No, Axi, the change of attitude came with the rising of the Kodo Party and Japan's militarisation.

Choose one, Deegan. Either Japanese adventurism forced a clash with the United States that was out of Washington’s control, or the discreet action of the embargo was the whole of the issue.

Ah, because it was somehow our fault the Japanese decided to launch a general war to support their ongoing war of conquest in China

Now I can’t tell whether you’re being dishonest, or are just stupid. My point was that the United States took reasonable action in response to Japanese activities in Asia and was then the victim of a surprise attack. Just as it may find itself taking reasonable action in the future that nonetheless leads extremists to attack us. It is one thing to say that things like our intervention in Afghanistan were ill thought out. Or to complain that we made our own bed by intervening in Iraq. Evaluating the events leading up to Pearl Harbor is an excellent example of how the United States, merely by virtue of having interests in far corners of the world, can end up in wars that cannot be avoided. The embargo was both reasonable and moral from the American standpoint. And yet the Japanese attacked.

[Patrick Degan]

Britain has dealt with Irish terrorism for decades, Europe with Muslim and Marxist terrorism, and Israel with Palestinian terrorism also for decades.

And yet, in the United States, Bill Clinton’s blowjob was still more important.

Only to his opposition and not to the people actually fighting terrorism —y'know, the ones who stopped the Millenium Bomb Plot.

Most amusing coming from the man so desperately attempting to derail a thread about Russia so he can again stand on his 9-11 soapbox.

Actually, it was you and Sir Nitram who began making posts that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original thread topic.

Lie. You started this entire 9-11 tangent in the first fucking place.

I know you believe you have a cogent point somewhere in that drivel of yours. The very existence of Al-Qaeda was blowback. 9-11 on the other hand remains not an example of blowback but incompetence.

This is you being dishonest and stupid in a frantic effort to discredit me. Big surprise.

No, this is you being the usual dishonest shitwit you've been for the last four and so years, again engaging in Appeals to Motive and whining like a little bitch when your pontifications get the mockery they so roundly deserve.

Acknowledging where Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are actually making cogent arguments on particular issues is not the same thing as endorsing wholesale isolationism. You are the only person putting up that dishonest strawman. Four-plus years and you haven't learned a single new trick, have you Axi?

The only cogent argument that Ron Paul had was that history matters. Serious foreign policy “rollback” is impossible.

Again, where is anybody on this thread advocating wholesale isolationism, Axi? How about a quote from any of the posters saying we must adopt isolationism as policy?

The issue of China prior to World War II is the example you seek of how blowback is always possible.

As always, I am not responsible for your fantasies. We had no obligation to keep supplying the Japanese war machine, asshole. They had already determined their path to conquest and they made the decision to extend their war to us. That's not blowback, that's simply outright militarism.

And yet before they were actually launching wars of conquest and being denied their purchase of oil to fuel their war machine the Japanese didn't make anything of this alleged "affront" for years. No, Axi, the change of attitude came with the rising of the Kodo Party and Japan's militarisation.

Choose one, Deegan. Either Japanese adventurism forced a clash with the United States that was out of Washington’s control, or the discreet action of the embargo was the whole of the issue.

False Dilemma, and one pinned on your dishonest or stupid (choose one) attempt to liken Japan's outright imperialism to scenarios involving the unintended consequence of a policy decision in the modern era —the actual definition of "blowback", BTW.

Ah, because it was somehow our fault the Japanese decided to launch a general war to support their ongoing war of conquest in China

Now I can’t tell whether you’re being dishonest, or are just stupid.

Look who's talking.

My point was that the United States took reasonable action in response to Japanese activities in Asia and was then the victim of a surprise attack.

You ignore the fact that the United States had actually been anticipating war but merely did not anticipate exactly where the war would begin. You also ignore the fact that Japan's "surprise" attack took on its character because of a delay in the translation of the Imperial rescript proclaiming a state of war which was intended to be delivered to Washington before the attack actually began. Had things gone as planned, Japan's war declaration would have been delivered in time before actual hostilities, in observance of the Hague Convention legalities. You also ignore the long breakdown of diplomatic relations prior to the attack. This was no blowback situation, asshole, but the degeneration into general war.

Just as it may find itself taking reasonable action in the future that nonetheless leads extremists to attack us. It is one thing to say that things like our intervention in Afghanistan were ill thought out. Or to complain that we made our own bed by intervening in Iraq. Evaluating the events leading up to Pearl Harbor is an excellent example of how the United States, merely by virtue of having interests in far corners of the world, can end up in wars that cannot be avoided. The embargo was both reasonable and moral from the American standpoint. And yet the Japanese attacked.

No it doesn't actually —see above. You clearly do not understand the defintion of blowback, but I suppose you will attempt to redefine it to suit your own purposes.

[Axis Kast]

quote] Only to his opposition and not to the people actually fighting terrorism —y'know, the ones who stopped the Millenium Bomb Plot. [/quote]

Is it seriously your contention that the United States had the same policy priorities before 9/11 as afterward? Is it seriously your contention that terrorism/”homeland security” was the driving political issue of the time before 9/11?

Lie. You started this entire 9-11 tangent in the first fucking place.

Lie. I mentioned the reshuffling of priorities and worldviews after 9/11 as a tangential point to a wider argument on American foreign relations with Russia. You and Sir Nitram then stormed in to have it out about this subject for the umpteenth time.

No, this is you being the usual dishonest shitwit you've been for the last four and so years, again engaging in Appeals to Motive and whining like a little bitch when your pontifications get the mockery they so roundly deserve.

You have just denied that 9/11 is an example of blowback in order to discredit me. You should stop digging.

Again, where is anybody on this thread advocating wholesale isolationism, Axi? How about a quote from any of the posters saying we must adopt isolationism as policy?

Presuming that the United States can seriously extricate itself from international problems is the equivalent of trust in isolationism. Suggestion that we can somehow minimize our “footprint” on the world and get excellent results are entirely out of keeping with reality.

I agree that we can be more judicious. We would be safer today had we not invaded Iraq. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda – which leads the thrust in terms of “homeland” attacks on the United States – would still be active against us.

As always, I am not responsible for your fantasies. We had no obligation to keep supplying the Japanese war machine, asshole. They had already determined their path to conquest and they made the decision to extend their war to us. That's not blowback, that's simply outright militarism.

First of all, nobody argued that we had an obligation to supply the Japanese war machine, least of all me. I contended that our reaction to their behavior in China was “reasonable”.

And if blowback is a manifestation of unintended consequences, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a sterling example. Blowback does not only occur when the U.S. “fucks up”. This is a fundamental distinction that you seem to have yet to grasp.

I refuse to get into an argument with you on the operational particulars of Pearl Harbor, which is neither here nor there.

[SirNitram]

Britain has dealt with Irish terrorism for decades, Europe with Muslim and Marxist terrorism, and Israel with Palestinian terrorism also for decades.

And yet, in the United States, Bill Clinton’s blowjob was still more important.

Ah, I now understand entirely. You see, Kast, Bill Clinton's blowjob was important to exactly two portions of the electorate: The D.C. pundits and blowhards who viewed it as 'Their city'(Broder is famous for decrying the twice-elected Clinton as unpopular and trashing a city that 'isn't his'), and the moral-extremist fucktards of the Religious Right.

Because only an utter imbecile who has no right talking about what's 'important' to American people would ignore the fact his popularity was at 67% during his own Impeachment. Why don't you try another faux-rebuttal, Kast, since you just had to drag up '9/11 changed things, it must have, because it woke my lazy ass off the couch! I CAN'T BELEIVE ANYONE ELSE WAS PAYING ATTENTION! THE NEOCONS SAID SO IT MUST BE TRUE!' canard again.

[Patrick Degan]

Is it seriously your contention that the United States had the same policy priorities before 9/11 as afterward? Is it seriously your contention that terrorism/”homeland security” was the driving political issue of the time before 9/11?

No, stupid. It is my contention that we had a government which did take terrorism seriously instead of using it as a catch-all excuse and a boogeyman to frighten the people with while not actually doing anything towards actually combatting the problem.

Lie. You started this entire 9-11 tangent in the first fucking place.

Lie.

Yours, actually, but do yammer on.

I mentioned the reshuffling of priorities and worldviews after 9/11 as a tangential point to a wider argument on American foreign relations with Russia. You and Sir Nitram then stormed in to have it out about this subject for the umpteenth time.

Oh cry us a fucking river, already. Bringing in 9-11 at all in reference to a discussion about Russia was a Red Herring and you know it. Now we all have to sit by while you go "Waaaaaahhh! Everybody's being mean to me because they don't understand me WAAAAAAAAAAH!!!" for the umpteenth time. That your other points also face similar attack isn't so important so long as you get to make your false cries of foul, as if anybody is impressed.

No, this is you being the usual dishonest shitwit you've been for the last four and so years, again engaging in Appeals to Motive and whining like a little bitch when your pontifications get the mockery they so roundly deserve.

You have just denied that 9/11 is an example of blowback in order to discredit me. You should stop digging.

I always deny bullshit arguments. Particularly self-pitying bullshit arguments. Really, Axi, you're getting sloppier at this.

Again, where is anybody on this thread advocating wholesale isolationism, Axi? How about a quote from any of the posters saying we must adopt isolationism as policy?

Presuming that the United States can seriously extricate itself from international problems is the equivalent of trust in isolationism. Suggestion that we can somehow minimize our “footprint” on the world and get excellent results are entirely out of keeping with reality.

Because you say it must be? I don't think so. But then, we've had plenty of experience with your dishonest redefintions of other peoples' arguments in the past. I also see, as ususal, that you can't back your contention with anything resembling a quote from a poster in this thread to the effect you claim, so I am now going to make this very simple for you: EITHER PRODUCE A QUOTE FROM ANYBODY IN THIS THREAD ADVOCATING ISOLATIONISM AS A POLICY TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLES' WORDS —AS PER DEBATE RULE SIX— OR SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.

I agree that we can be more judicious. We would be safer today had we not invaded Iraq. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda – which leads the thrust in terms of “homeland” attacks on the United States – would still be active against us.

Only they wouldn't be having the Iraq War as recruiting material, now would they? And as for "leading the thrust", they shot their wad with 9-11 and only the Iraq War keeps Al Qaeda alive now.

As always, I am not responsible for your fantasies. We had no obligation to keep supplying the Japanese war machine, asshole. They had already determined their path to conquest and they made the decision to extend their war to us. That's not blowback, that's simply outright militarism.

First of all, nobody argued that we had an obligation to supply the Japanese war machine, least of all me. I contended that our reaction to their behavior in China was “reasonable”.

And if blowback is a manifestation of unintended consequences, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a sterling example. Blowback does not only occur when the U.S. “fucks up”. This is a fundamental distinction that you seem to have yet to grasp.

Wrong again, stupid. The only thing which distinguished Pearl Harbour was that it was a strike where and when we hadn't quite expected (Harold Stark assumed the first attack would be against the Philippines), not that we weren't anticipating war —as George Marshall's war warning weeks earlier said that if hostilities were to break out, the U.S. desired that Japan should commit the first overt act.

I refuse to get into an argument with you on the operational particulars of Pearl Harbor, which is neither here nor there.

And mainly because they torpedo your ignorant argument regarding blowback in connection to World War II which I expect you'll continue to push for the next several pages.