[Peace-discuss] Worthwhile discussion between Paul Jay & Max Blumenthal with much more than just a firing.

Sun Aug 20 17:38:14 UTC 2017

Yes - as I used to argue on the radio version of  'News from Neptune,’ since the First Gulf War, Buchanan’s views on war were far better than those of any US liberal political figure.

[The following is from Wikipedia; the whole article is worth reading: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Pat_Buchanan#Overall <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Pat_Buchanan#Overall>>.] 
=================================================

...Buchanan argues that the United States' ability to control its own affairs is under siege due to free trade ideology, globalism, globalization and other issues, discussed below. He once remarked, "we love the old republic, and when we hear phrases like 'new world order,' we release the safety catches on our revolvers."[93]

Buchanan strongly opposes military interventionism. "Interventionism is the incubator of terrorism," he said in 2001. He approvingly quotes George Washington and Thomas Jefferson regarding the dangers of "entangling alliances" and foreign military adventures.

Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin—from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.[2][page needed]

Since the end of the Cold War, Buchanan has consistently been opposed to U.S. intervention and has advocated a conservative, anti-interventionist foreign policy.

For example, Buchanan once suggested that the U.S. remove the United Nations headquarters from New York City and send in the Marines to "help pack." He supports withdrawal from the Rome Treaty and most of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He also suggests that foreign aid be rolled back and that all US troops pull out of Europe.[94] In The Great Betrayal, he wrote, "Like a shipwrecked, exhausted Gulliver on the beach of Lilliput, America is to be tied down with threads, strand by strand, until it cannot move when it awakens. Piece by piece, our sovereignty is being surrendered."[95]

Buchanan's entire career reflects staunch anti-communism. He called for a strong national defense during the Cold War and supported the Vietnam War, saying that communism directly threatened the safety of the United States. He does not approve of the way the Vietnam War was fought or the initial decision to wage it,[96] but believes the United States could have won the war if it had been fought correctly. Today, he expresses concern about China as a threat to United States security. In Where the Right Went Wrong, he claimed that "the Communist Chinese government has the secret loyalty of millions of 'overseas Chinese' from Singapore to San Francisco."

Buchanan opposes other U.S. military actions abroad, including the Persian Gulf and Iraq Wars. Buchanan opposes neo-conservative foreign policy, and has vocally opposed every major military campaign the U.S. has engaged in since the end of the Cold War except the United States invasion of Afghanistan. On The McLaughlin Group in December 2005, he referred to the current war in Iraq as the worst foreign policy disaster of his lifetime, and on "Scarborough Country" in December 2006 he called the war "The worst mistake in American history."[97] Unlike many conservatives, he outspokenly opposed the invasion of Iraq when it was first proposed in 2002.[98] He supports the tradition of 'neutrality' or 'non-interventionism'[citation needed] which was the policy of the United States prior to the onset of the Cold War.[citation needed] He has said that "Unless American honor, vital interests or citizens were at risk or have been attacked, U.S. policy should be to stay out of war." He is credited with reviving the slogan "America First,"[citation needed] which was the name of a group that opposed American intervention in World War II. In his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire, he applauds that organization's efforts and calls its supporters maligned patriots.[page needed] He also argued that the committee deserves credit for the fact that Soviet casualties far outnumbered American ones on the European Front.[99] Buchanan's critics often describe him as an isolationist,[citation needed] which he denies.[citation needed]

He is in favor of ending treaties that he believes do not protect the interests of the United States, such as one-way defense treaties where the US must militarily come to the defense of another country, but not vice versa. For example, he believes that the U.S. no longer has any legitimate reason to be a member of NATO ever since the fall of the Soviet Union and he strongly opposed American intervention in the Yugoslav Wars...
===================================================

—CGE

> On Aug 20, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Dianna Visek via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
> 
> I can comment on Buchanan.  While I disagree with his positions on many topics, he's got it right on empire.  He even wrote a wonderful book, A Republic, Not an Empire:  Reclaiming America's Destiny,  that describes all of our conflicts since our founding and argues that all attempts at empire throughout history have ended in disaster.
> 
> Dianna
> 
> 
> On Sunday, August 20, 2017, 11:25:21 AM CDT, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Ron Paul has certainly spoken out against, American empire, on many occasions. I can’t comment on Buchanan.
> 
> 
>> On Aug 20, 2017, at 09:19, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com <mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> If we have alliances with (capitalist) Democrats and Republicans on the basis of some common goals, no reason not to have alliances with others. Progressives who reject such alliances end up supporting the status quo, probably not by accident.
>> 
>> One might argue, with some credibility, that the "left" is in danger of used by the "right," that is, to become a party to intra-capitalist factions regarding trade, etc., among the various sectors--manufacturing, resource extraction, FIRE (finance insurance real estate); pertaining especially to issues of "free trade."
>> 
>> Blumenthal and Jay debate the ins and outs of Bannon's opposition to war with Korea vs. his aggressiveness regarding the Middle East, Blumenthal remarking on the complicated relationships between Trump, Adelson, extreme Zionists, etc. But these are debates that accept the premise of American empire, whereas Paul/Buchanan do not, I don't think.
>> 
>> ps://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss <https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20170820/130ba82c/attachment-0001.html>