Author Topic: Pat Buchanus Looks Forward to Iranian Attack on U.S. Troops  (Read 1462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23384
  • Real Kahanist
Pat Buchanus Looks Forward to Iranian Attack on U.S. Troops
« on: August 13, 2008, 02:16:05 PM »
Somewhat old article (2 1/2 years ago), but still very revealing of the feelings of this Nazi serpent. Here we see the so-called hardcore "America-first" conservative Fag Buchanus, who is here writing for a Marxist e-zine, gleefully and joyously predicting the consequences of a U.S. airstrike on Iran's Russian-built nuclear plants (in addition to his usual attacks on Jewish survival). He also resorts to flat-out rewrites of history, making the Nazi collaborator Winston Churchill out to be a Zionist. (I'm sure that what he really wants to do is outright accuse Churchill [and all others who fought his blessed, hallowed Reich of memory] of being Jewish, but knows that would cause him to lose all credibility outside of his Nazi faithful.)

All bolding and italics were added by Chaimfan.

http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8437

Quote from: Fag Buchanus
Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel
by Patrick J. Buchanan

In the test of wills between the West and Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows no sign of backing down.

The Iranian president has said Israel should be "wiped off the map," called the Holocaust a "myth," and said Israelis should be given a province in Austria, but they should get out of Palestine. Whatever was done to the Jews, said Ahmadinejad, we didn't do it. Europeans did. Why should we pay the price?

This weekend, The New York Times provided supporting testimony for Ahmadinejad, citing secret Cabinet notes of Winston Churchill's in 1943:

"I'm committed to creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Let us go on with that; and at end of war we shall have plenty of force with which to compel the Arabs to acquiesce in our designs. Don't shirk our duties because of difficulties…"

This weekend, Ahmadinejad was in Damascus, Syria, winning the backing of President Assad for Iran's nuclear program, meeting with Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and scoffing at Israeli threats. Iran has also reasserted its right to enrich uranium for nuclear power.

This has caused much threatening talk in Israel and here. This weekend, Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman were again speaking of "military options" being "on the table." And Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz went further, speaking directly to Iran's president:

"I address you as someone who leads his country with an ideology of hate, terror, and anti-Semitism. I suggest you look at history and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish people. … Israel is not prepared to accept the nuclear arming of Iran, and it must prepare to defend itself, with all that implies."

But Ahmadinejad is not backing off. And his provocative rhetoric has paid off. He has strengthened his position at home and made himself the toast of the Muslim street. And panic over a possible war sent the Dow plunging 200 points last Friday, wiping out $200 billion in U.S. shareholders' equity, a loss almost equal to the cost of the Iraq war.

And with the price of a barrel of oil spiking $10 to near $70, Iran, which exports 2.5 million barrels daily, has seen revenues rise $25 million a day. Other oil-producing nations, like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, also are reaping windfall profits.

The jolts to the Dow and NASDAQ, and Tehran's warnings that sanctions could be met with an oil embargo that could send prices to $100 a barrel, seem to have caused second thoughts in the Bush camp about the wisdom of a confrontation.

In a week, the International Atomic Energy Agency will decide whether to send Iran to the Security Council. But as there is no hard evidence Iran is building weapons or is even in noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Russia may oppose sanctions and China may veto them.

As for the military option, no one knows what U.S. air strikes might produce. Possibilities include tens of thousands of Iranian volunteers streaming into Iraq to attack U.S. troops, Iran's inciting of the Shia south to rise against us, an oil embargo, Silkworm missiles fired at tankers, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz with mines, and terror attacks on U.S. allies and installations across the Middle East – driving the price of oil to $200 a barrel.

With 160,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. strikes, which could kill hundreds of Iranians and silence the pro-American voices there, uniting Iran behind Ahmadinejad, would seem an option that could cost us everything. Can we really afford another war, against a nation three times as populous and four times as large as Iraq?

Bush and Cheney seem aware of the risks of the "military option." But if they rule it out, they will see a bad moon rising on the Right. Not only will the neoconservatives howl, Israelis will see themselves as the odd man out, if Bush should move to negotiations with Tehran, which is the only real alternative to confrontation.

If America does not strike, Mofaz is saying, Israel will. Yet, as that could produce the same results as an American attack, without the same assurance of success, Bush may have to restrain Israel, if he does not want a wider war.

In short, if Bush does not confront Iran on the nuclear issue with sanctions or air strikes, he may find himself confronted by Israelis and their U.S. auxiliaries. Hearken to Hillary Clinton:

"I don't believe you face threats like Iran and North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."

Hillary is saying that if George Bush does not confront Iran, he is open to the charge of leaving Israel to face a nuclear attack by a regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Political hardball.

Over to you, Mr. President.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2008, 05:12:01 PM by Shlomo »

Offline Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23384
  • Real Kahanist
Re: Pat Buchanus Looks Forward to Iranian Attack on U.S. Troops
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2008, 02:32:59 PM »
Mord, please look at this and comment. It should be clear that Buchanus really wants Obama to win (McCain has pledged not to tolerate Iran getting WMDs).

Offline mord

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25853
Re: Pat Buchanus Looks Forward to Iranian Attack on U.S. Troops
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2008, 02:33:50 PM »
He's a leftist last time he ran he had a black woman running mate
Thy destroyers and they that make thee waste shall go forth of thee.  Isaiah 49:17

 
Shot at 2010-01-03

Offline mord

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25853
Re: Pat Buchanus Looks Forward to Iranian Attack on U.S. Troops
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2008, 02:36:09 PM »
Mord, please look at this and comment. It should be clear that Buchanus really wants Obama to win (McCain has pledged not to tolerate Iran getting WMDs).
Yes he is an anti Jewish draft dodger but that 1 article about osama obama was goo.Yes he is evil
Thy destroyers and they that make thee waste shall go forth of thee.  Isaiah 49:17

 
Shot at 2010-01-03

Offline judeanoncapta

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2080
  • Rebuild it now!!!!
Re: Pat Buchanus Looks Forward to Iranian Attack on U.S. Troops
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2008, 03:35:52 PM »
Mord, please look at this and comment. It should be clear that Buchanus really wants Obama to win (McCain has pledged not to tolerate Iran getting WMDs).

More than that, he really wants Ahmadinejad to win. You can see from his words that he relishes the idea of Israel being wiped off the map. I'm sure it gives him a real smile.
Post questions here for the ASK JUDEA TORAH SHOW


my blog: Yehudi-Nation






Who is truly wise? He who can see the future. I see tommorow today and I want to end it - Rabbi Meir Daweedh Kahana

Offline P J C

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2378
  • Liberty and Justice for All
    • Take Back the West
Re: Pat Buchanus Looks Forward to Iranian Attack on U.S. Troops
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2008, 03:37:51 PM »
He always will be an anti-american leftist.
"A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but a foolish man's heart directs him toward the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2

Offline Muck DeFuslims

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Pat Buchanus Looks Forward to Iranian Attack on U.S. Troops
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2008, 05:02:50 PM »
Somewhat old article (2 1/2 years ago), but still very revealing of the feelings of this Nazi serpent. Here we see the so-called hardcore "America-first" conservative Fag Buchanus, who is here writing for a Marxist e-zine, gleefully and joyously predicting the consequences of a U.S. airstrike on Iran's Russian-built nuclear plants (in addition to his usual attacks on Jewish survival). He also resorts to flat-out rewrites of history, making the Nazi collaborator Winston Churchill out to be a Zionist. (I'm sure that what he really wants to do is outright accuse Churchill [and all others who fought his blessed, hallowed Reich of memory] of being Jewish, but knows that would cause him to lose all credibility outside of his Nazi faithful.)

All bolding and italics were added by Chaimfan.

http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8437

Quote from: Fag Buchanus
Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel
by Patrick J. Buchanan

In the test of wills between the West and Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows no sign of backing down.

The Iranian president has said Israel should be "wiped off the map," called the Holocaust a "myth," and said Israelis should be given a province in Austria, but they should get out of Palestine. Whatever was done to the Jews, said Ahmadinejad, we didn't do it. Europeans did. Why should we pay the price?

This weekend, The New York Times provided supporting testimony for Ahmadinejad, citing secret Cabinet notes of Winston Churchill's in 1943:

"I'm committed to creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Let us go on with that; and at end of war we shall have plenty of force with which to compel the Arabs to acquiesce in our designs. Don't shirk our duties because of difficulties…"

This weekend, Ahmadinejad was in Damascus, Syria, winning the backing of President Assad for Iran's nuclear program, meeting with Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and scoffing at Israeli threats. Iran has also reasserted its right to enrich uranium for nuclear power.

This has caused much threatening talk in Israel and here. This weekend, Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman were again speaking of "military options" being "on the table." And Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz went further, speaking directly to Iran's president:

"I address you as someone who leads his country with an ideology of hate, terror, and anti-Semitism. I suggest you look at history and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish people. … Israel is not prepared to accept the nuclear arming of Iran, and it must prepare to defend itself, with all that implies."

But Ahmadinejad is not backing off. And his provocative rhetoric has paid off. He has strengthened his position at home and made himself the toast of the Muslim street. And panic over a possible war sent the Dow plunging 200 points last Friday, wiping out $200 billion in U.S. shareholders' equity, a loss almost equal to the cost of the Iraq war.

And with the price of a barrel of oil spiking $10 to near $70, Iran, which exports 2.5 million barrels daily, has seen revenues rise $25 million a day. Other oil-producing nations, like Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, also are reaping windfall profits.

The jolts to the Dow and NASDAQ, and Tehran's warnings that sanctions could be met with an oil embargo that could send prices to $100 a barrel, seem to have caused second thoughts in the Bush camp about the wisdom of a confrontation.

In a week, the International Atomic Energy Agency will decide whether to send Iran to the Security Council. But as there is no hard evidence Iran is building weapons or is even in noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Russia may oppose sanctions and China may veto them.

As for the military option, no one knows what U.S. air strikes might produce. Possibilities include tens of thousands of Iranian volunteers streaming into Iraq to attack U.S. troops, Iran's inciting of the Shia south to rise against us, an oil embargo, Silkworm missiles fired at tankers, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz with mines, and terror attacks on U.S. allies and installations across the Middle East – driving the price of oil to $200 a barrel.

With 160,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. strikes, which could kill hundreds of Iranians and silence the pro-American voices there, uniting Iran behind Ahmadinejad, would seem an option that could cost us everything. Can we really afford another war, against a nation three times as populous and four times as large as Iraq?

Bush and Cheney seem aware of the risks of the "military option." But if they rule it out, they will see a bad moon rising on the Right. Not only will the neoconservatives howl, Israelis will see themselves as the odd man out, if Bush should move to negotiations with Tehran, which is the only real alternative to confrontation.

If America does not strike, Mofaz is saying, Israel will. Yet, as that could produce the same results as an American attack, without the same assurance of success, Bush may have to restrain Israel, if he does not want a wider war.

In short, if Bush does not confront Iran on the nuclear issue with sanctions or air strikes, he may find himself confronted by Israelis and their U.S. auxiliaries. Hearken to Hillary Clinton:

"I don't believe you face threats like Iran and North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."

Hillary is saying that if George Bush does not confront Iran, he is open to the charge of leaving Israel to face a nuclear attack by a regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Political hardball.

Over to you, Mr. President.

Thanks for posting this, CF.

Nowhere in his article does Buchanon mention the fact that Ahmedinejad openly speaks of a 'world without America' and the danger Iranian nukes pose to the USA.

Since it's impossible that Buchanon is oblivious to this threat, it's obvious Buchanon's intent is to blame Israel and the Jews for any attack on Iran and the repercussions of an Iranian retaliation which is sure to follow.

Buchanon is becoming increasingly notorious these days for his revisionism regarding Hitler and the causes of WWII. This article was certainly a harbinger of his most recent revisionist efforts. Sadly, there are many people ignorant enough to be duped by Buchanon, and of course there's the omnipresent Jew haters and Nazis that gleefully embrace his agenda.

Buchanon is nothing more than a devious Jew hating, Nazi scumbag.

Offline RanterMaximus

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1718
Re: Pat Buchanus Looks Forward to Iranian Attack on U.S. Troops
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2008, 05:28:06 PM »
I forgot Buchanan had a black lady as his running mate in 2000.  But let's be fair.  If a lot of dumbells had not accidentally voted for him, Al Gore would have become president.