Pat Buchanan on the Syria Pullout

Pat Buchanan does a terrific job in this video outling what amounts to the true, classical conservative position on foreign policy:

YouTube

... To try to explain it beyond a bit of what Pat was saying here, I think that a lot of the Neocon perspective came from the Cold War. There was the idea of WWII awakening a sleeping giant -- a sleeping giant that should never go to sleep again, in the perspective of Neocons. This continue through the Cold War and then we get to a point where the Neocons believe that it is their duty to remake the whole world in their image.

Isn't this ultimately what globalization means? If there is anything that we can say is being globalized it is the Western liberal democratic paradigm -- a paradigm that the Neocons view as explicitly hyper-capitalist and human rights oriented in terms of positive freedoms, and which the neoliberals view as involving a welfare state and negative liberties. The fun part is, of course, that the American left is now arguing increasingly for free trade, anti-protectionism, and open borders, showing that they are really ready to work within the model of the New World Order (so to speak).

Pres. Trump and populist conservatism represents a departure from this.

If you are a liberal who is a genuine leftist interested in truly radical Leftism, it would be puzzling to me as to why you would view Trump with even more malice that you did than you viewed a Bush.

Regardless, it is a decent video that you should consider listening to.

@philokalia said
Pat Buchanan does a terrific job in this video outling what amounts to the true, classical conservative position on foreign policy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDf54QRCY4

... To try to explain it beyond a bit of what Pat was saying here, I think that a lot of the Neocon perspective came from the Cold War. There was the idea of WWII awakening a sleeping giant -- ...[text shortened]... d than you viewed a Bush.

Regardless, it is a decent video that you should consider listening to.

If you are a liberal who is a genuine leftist interested in truly radical Leftism, it would be puzzling to me as to why you would view Trump with even more malice that you did than you viewed a Bush.




I don't consider myself a genuine leftist interested in truly radical Leftism, but a left of center Independent. That said, I can think of several reasons why I view Trump with even more malice than I did than Bush.

1. Trump has no idea how to govern, he is trying (without success) to run the executive branch just like he did his business, hiring and firing at at a whim. Our country is too important to have this kind of instability in the west wing. Bush was a Governor, and a more stable guy, he understood how the framers of our Constitution designed our executive branch to operate.

2. Bush didn't lie about Mexico paying for a border wall

2. Bush didn't bring high ranking Russians into the oval office and give away our most valuable intel to them (can you imagine what the fair and balanced folks at FOX News would say if Clinton or Obama had done this?)

3. President Bush was the one who sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq going after Osama Bin Laden, but it was Obama that tracked him down and gave the order to have him killed (another little tidbit they don't like to discuss on Fox and Friends) Bush and afterward Obama were both under pressure to keep troops in the region because they both saw the rise of ISIS, and from Republicans in Congress who would label them "soft on terror"

4. When Bush ordered troop movements, he did so in an orderly manner. He DID NOT do it on a whim and by tweet. (can you imagine what the fair and balanced folks at FOX News would say if Clinton or Obama had done this?)

I have a lot more, but I think you get the idea. I didn't agree with Bush on a number of things, but he was a better President. Donald Trump is in way over his head here. His policy of digging a moat around the USA and pulling up the drawbridge is both short sighted and unworkable. If America must have a Republican President would have much preferred Marco Rubio, or Bob Corker. At least these 2 have some clue how to do the job of President. Right now America has a clueless and scared old man with more legal problems than Al Capone.

@philokalia said
Pat Buchanan does a terrific job in this video outling what amounts to the true, classical conservative position on foreign policy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDf54QRCY4

... To try to explain it beyond a bit of what Pat was saying here, I think that a lot of the Neocon perspective came from the Cold War. There was the idea of WWII awakening a sleeping giant -- ...[text shortened]... d than you viewed a Bush.

Regardless, it is a decent video that you should consider listening to.

It's not just neo-cons who are upset, marauder posted a scathing critique on Trump for pulling troops out of Syria.

Both Dims and neo-cons want continuous war in the Middle East.

Go figure.

Orange man bad!

@whodey said
It's not just neo-cons who are upset, marauder posted a scathing critique on Trump for pulling troops out of Syria.

Both Dims and neo-cons want continuous war in the Middle East.

Go figure.

Orange man bad!

I have been avoiding the thread he started on the topic -- I actually suspected, from the title, that we would have some agreement on the issue, as it sounded like a condemnation of war...

But, surprise, surprise!

The anti-war Left finds a weird, sick line of reasoning to wiggle out of the right conclusion even when they are all set up to be the broken clock that is right but twice a day!

@whodey said
It's not just neo-cons who are upset, marauder posted a scathing critique on Trump for pulling troops out of Syria.

Both Dims and neo-cons want continuous war in the Middle East.

Go figure.

Orange man bad!

Actually I posted the complete opposite. But since you have a preconceived idea about what other people think, you probably didn't read it and just assumed what I would post.

@philokalia said
I have been avoiding the thread he started on the topic -- I actually suspected, from the title, that we would have some agreement on the issue, as it sounded like a condemnation of war...

But, surprise, surprise!

The anti-war Left finds a weird, sick line of reasoning to wiggle out of the right conclusion even when they are all set up to be the broken clock that is right but twice a day!

Obviously you "avoided it" i.e. didn't read it but are simply willing to accept whodey's erroneous claims.

I guess that isn't a "surprise, surprise" but it is deeply disappointing.

@philokalia said
Pat Buchanan does a terrific job in this video outling what amounts to the true, classical conservative position on foreign policy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDf54QRCY4

... To try to explain it beyond a bit of what Pat was saying here, I think that a lot of the Neocon perspective came from the Cold War. There was the idea of WWII awakening a sleeping giant -- ...[text shortened]... d than you viewed a Bush.

Regardless, it is a decent video that you should consider listening to.

I think you do not understand what a neoliberal is.

@deepthought said
I think you do not understand what a neoliberal is.

IF the troops are going to be pulled out of Syria because IS is defeated, why is Trump insisting on leaving over 5,000 in Iraq who were placed there for the same reason i.e. to fight IS? Apparently his visit to them without bothering to tell Iraq's government that he would be entering their soil has kicked up a hornet's nest there:

Iraqi lawmakers Thursday demanded U.S. forces leave the country in the wake of a surprise visit by President Donald Trump that politicians denounced as arrogant and a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

Politicians from both blocs of Iraq’s divided Parliament called for a vote to expel U.S. troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter.


“Parliament must clearly and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty,” said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker loyal to the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Trump, making his first presidential visit to troops in a troubled region Wednesday, said he has no plans to withdraw the 5,200 U.S. forces in the country.

Containing foreign influence has become a hot-button issue in a year that saw al-Sadr supporters win the largest share of votes in May elections. Al-Sadr has called for curbing U.S. and Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs.

U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq as part of the coalition against the Islamic State group. American forces withdrew in 2011 after invading in 2003 but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the Iraqi government to help fight the jihadist group.

But after defeating IS militants in their last urban bastions last year, Iraqi politicians and militia leaders are speaking out against the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraqi soil.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/27/iraq-us-troop-withdrawal-trump-1076363

@no1marauder said
IF the troops are going to be pulled out of Syria because IS is defeated, why is Trump insisting on leaving over 5,000 in Iraq who were placed there for the same reason i.e. to fight IS? Apparently his visit to them without bothering to tell Iraq's government that he would be entering their soil has kicked up a hornet's nest there:

Iraqi lawmakers Thursday demanded U. ...[text shortened]... s in Iraqi soil.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/27/iraq-us-troop-withdrawal-trump-1076363

Now that IS is almost gone Trump has to keep Iran in check.

https://www.newsweek.com/kissinger-warns-trump-isis-keeping-iran-check-he-must-not-let-it-fill-void-647766

I think the pullout is more of an effort to position himself for re-election. The UK and France might take over where DJT left off. France has never saw a former colony it didn't want to overthrow. Libya and Syria are both former colonies of France.

The troops in Iraq probably aren't there solely for ISIS and are likely deeply invested in the immediate security needs of Iraq.

Do you suggest they should also be pulled out?

Or are you just noting things for us?

@philokalia said
The troops in Iraq probably aren't there solely for ISIS and are likely deeply invested in the immediate security needs of Iraq.

Do you suggest they should also be pulled out?

Or are you just noting things for us?

Just noting.

@metal-brain said
Just noting.

Oh yeah, I was actually addressing Mar

@philokalia said
The troops in Iraq probably aren't there solely for ISIS and are likely deeply invested in the immediate security needs of Iraq.

Do you suggest they should also be pulled out?

Or are you just noting things for us?

Reading the linked article always helps:

U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq as part of the coalition against the Islamic State group. American forces withdrew in 2011 after invading in 2003 but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the Iraqi government to help fight the jihadist group.


I want them out and don't see under what logic Trump would withdraw from Syria but stay in Iraq now that the mission against IS is completed (I don't even think they hold any territory in Iraq).

@metal-brain said
Now that IS is almost gone Trump has to keep Iran in check.

https://www.newsweek.com/kissinger-warns-trump-isis-keeping-iran-check-he-must-not-let-it-fill-void-647766

I think the pullout is more of an effort to position himself for re-election. The UK and France might take over where DJT left off. France has never saw a former colony it didn't want to overthrow. Libya and Syria are both former colonies of France.

Libya was an Italian colony, not a French one.

@no1marauder said
Reading the linked article always helps:

U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq as part of the coalition against the Islamic State group. American forces withdrew in 2011 after invading in 2003 but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the Iraqi government to help fight the jihadist group.


I want them out and don't see under what logic Trump would withdraw from Syria b ...[text shortened]... q now that the mission against IS is completed (I don't even think they hold any territory in Iraq).

Syria is in Putin's sphere of influence as agreed upon by the two men and Iraq is in America's.