Buchanan: Israel a bigger threat than Iran

***UPDATED***

Pat Buchanan says he doesn’t see Iran as a threat because they don’t have a nuke and haven’t decided to build one. But Israel has 300 nukes, according to Buchanan, and he asks which is more of an existential threat, Iran or Israel?



***

UPDATE: Philip Klein tweeted me to say that, though he strongly disagrees, he believes that Buchanan was saying Israel was an existential threat to Iran, not to America. Perhaps, I can hear it both ways, but I can see his point. So I’ve edited to remove “America” from the context. Either way, whichever he means, both are absurd.

Just to be clear about Klein’s position, he also tweeted to say:

Even given benefit of doubt, it’s absurd moral equivalence. Israel’s leaders aren’t talking about wiping Iran off the map.

He’s right. Buchanan has what I call the “Ron Paul syndrome” in this regard.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

177 thoughts on “Buchanan: Israel a bigger threat than Iran

  1. Buchanan doesn’t have Ron Paul syndrome, he’s just an old fashioned anti-semite. They do argue from the same playbook though. Buchanan makes the mistake in believing that the Mullahs have a western rationality – though to be fair, most of our political class think Islamists are rational and can simply be bought off.

  2. Iran and the Russians should send Buchannan a thank you note for the gusher of fresh sound bites for their propaganda.

  3. Is Buchanan for real? Just like the WMD’s were never found in Iraq, they are probably buried in the sand hundreds of miles into their desert areas, that is why they were never found. AND I would be willing to bet that Iran already has a nuclear warhead.

    Israel is our ally and Obama and now Buchanan has thrown them under the bus. They both forget that this is a Judeo-Christian world and Israel is our only true ally in the middle east. I say screw Iran, and join Israel to blow them off the map.

  4. Buchanon is an old anti-semite. He likes to use a perjorative that he is old enough to remember what the term actually means…That term is neocon. It is a term that he uses to describe Zionists both Christian and Jewish. And if you recall old Pat is still peeved that the conservatives did not support his Presidential campaign. So he decided to get back at them in his book “Where The Right Went Wrong”. The thesis is all about why the Right should be listening to him. It was an excercise in hurling imprecations at imaginary enemie IMO. The guy is a putz. Ignor him.

  5. Sorry Pat,…I stand with Israel………….. and, “until one has walked in their moccasins….” Well, I believe that the people of Israel know what is best for Israel! (just myo, but I believe that the girl is laeading Pat by asking Pat questions that reflectt her own adgenda!!!

  6. I know I am going to get a lot of comments on this comment, but here it goes….
    Are Buchanan and Ron Paul twins? Two peas in the same pod?

    I am reading Buchanan’s book now. It is very good, but if someone was reading it
    that doesn’t know his history they could take it either of two ways.

    I was really confused when MSNBC suspended him last fall and then finally let him go since his thought process on Israel matches theirs. His thoughts matches lots of theirs on lots of issues.

  7. Let me begin with the one statement you made in that ‘reply’ that I fully agree with…

    “…foreign spies with lots of money and cause unrest in Iran that combined with a total oil and produces embargo will cause an internal civil war in Iran…”

    THAT I agree with, wholeheartedly.

    Now, as for the rest of your reply… none of it dealt with my post, which dealt solely with:

    1. Your 40 minute trip down Duplicity Lane (to diametric OPPOSITE ends of the spectrum)
    2. You initial statement about “keeping boots on the ground” in a real-life “PIT OF DESPAIR” (and yes, I even saw the pasty-faced keeper of the tree spitting that out as I typed it…) “UNTIL”… and you gave conditions for our sons and daughters coming home that have NEVER occurred. EVER. In recorded history.

    My question remains. To be answered directly. Simply. To the point of it.

    CM Sackett

    ADDENDUM –
    You ask me a question at the end of your post. Fair enough. I shall answer with the following:

    Warriors are not are not trained OR sent to be ‘safe’. They ARE trained, and SHOULD BE sent where they can be MOST EFFECTIVE in bringing an END to situations or actions of enemies of our Consitution, and the Republic borne of it.

    THAT was the original intent of any ‘standing army’.

    For which “option” (to use a word in your query to me) is best… I refer you to that statement of yours I quoted in the very first of this reply.

    1. Where do I begin…..it is hard because your post is ill-written and difficult to understand.

      But I will slowly take and address each one as I can.

      ”1. Your 40 minute trip down Duplicity Lane (to diametric OPPOSITE ends of the spectrum)”

      My reply; What the hell are you talking about??? I have no idea.

      ”2. You initial statement about “keeping boots on the ground” in a real-life “PIT OF DESPAIR” (and yes, I even saw the pasty-faced keeper of the tree spitting that out as I typed it…) “UNTIL”… and you gave conditions for our sons and daughters coming home that have NEVER occurred. EVER. In recorded history.”

      My reply; Again, what are you rambling about? I have no idea.

      NEXT

      ”Warriors are not are not trained OR sent to be ‘safe’. They ARE trained, and SHOULD BE sent where they can be MOST EFFECTIVE in bringing an END to situations or actions of enemies of our Consitution, and the Republic borne of it.

      THAT was the original intent of any ‘standing army’.”

      My reply; No these people are not some warriors from ”the middle ages” nor should they be treated like cannon fodder from World War I!!! They are United States Soldiers and US Citizens who are a prized and most precious asset of the USA and should be treated with great respect used as sparingly and efficiently as possible to minimize their loss of life and never waste of this most precious resource.

      To call an airstrike that will have little to NO impact on changing the situaton in Iran would be a COMPLETE waste of these most valuable resources and at the very least counter productive because it will increase the risks to the assets that are currently allocated in Iraq. These US Citizens who are giving so much should not have to incur any more greater risk because some politician in Washington was goated into an attack that another nation wanted. Especially since there are many more alternatives that can be used with less risk, less cost, and produce greater results that you simple….”BOMB them” reply.

      Now if you wish better clarify your first two points…in a way that is understandable….I will be happy to reply.

      1. “You obviously need to re read what I posted because you are understanding nothing.”

        Ah, I see you are well trained in the Gríma Wormtongue school of staring your own stink in the face… and acting like it wasn’t you who broke wind.

        NOTE: Since your attention span seems to run a bit short, just ff to about the 1:08 mark for the ‘hollywood’ version of your act.

        So be it. I’ll move on to real people, wishing to have real discussions.

        Sackett

  8. I don’t give Pat Buchanan the benefit of the doubt. He’s made numerous anti Semitic, anti Israel, pro nazi comments over the years.

  9. What world is this guy living in for Pete sakes?! AmadinnnyHead has said publicly, more times than I care to number: He would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Connect the dots, Pat! Even you must be able to do that. Absolute retardation!!!

  10. This long-held notion about air strikes not working isn’t the end-of-the-argument flag some like to think it is.

    The reason the Military Strategy folks keep reminding everyone of this well-worn concept about air power is because they are operating under one major, significant assumption: That the persons making air strikes wish to leave behind a functioning, yet completely defeated government, and some high-level infrastructure, with the aim of making treaties. In other words, “winning a war.”

    This need not be the goal of air power.

    And this notion that the bombing didn’t “work” in Germany is silly. We invaded/liberated France and other countries, while bombing the s**t out of Germany, which drastically reduced their ability to wage war. An ability, I might add, that dwarfed the current ability of Iran by several orders of magnitude. By the time our troops went into Germany, the war was past the point where Germany had any chance of winning, and it was all over in about six weeks. If we’d sent troops into Germany at the start of the war, they’d have been massacred.

    If the goal is to stop the threat of Iran, it can be done by means other than “invasion.”
    If the goal is to totally defeat Iran militarily, while leaving the infrastructure intact, then you need to invade.

    A large number of tactical scenarios exist between those two potential goals.

    1. K-Bob,

      Sorry but that is bullcrap….The German armament industry actually produced more war machines, rockets, and planes from 1944 than it produced from 1938 to 1944….THAT IS A FACT…google German War Materials productions of World War 2.

      The bombing of German Cities was to demoralize the general population which today is considered cruel and inhuman. But it did actually very little to reduce Germanys ability to wage war from a armament production stand point.

      What did in Germany was a three front war from the East (USSR) West, and South (UK, and USA) by greatly superior numbers… from a combination of the USSR, UK and Commonwealth nations, and the USA. Lack of raw materials of oil, coal, and fuels plus an overwhelming ground war by vastly superior numbers are what ended Germanys ability to continue the war not Bombing. Air superiority is good for keeping the enemies head down and intelligence and tactical Battlefield usage through concentrated firepower. But as a nation defeater….no that is not the case.
      So you are wrong because the historic facts say you are wrong and you need to go back and study history again.

      You are correct that the only way you are going to change Iran from a military point is going to be invasion by ground forces that will most definitely stretch the US militaries limited resources too thin in my opinion. It would also be more that I think the USA population could stand from a loss of life aspect.

      The best course that is both logical, efficient, and cost effective would be covert actions and economic blockade that would cause rot on the inside and force the citizens to rise up against the current Ayatollahs and put an end to them by popular support. It would also be a much more accepted change that has a better possibility of lasting longer as the nations citizens cause the change not being forced by military invasion by another country that can cause great resentment and even more support for the existing government.

      1. You are simply incorrect.

        I knew they had “armaments”, but what I was getting at, and what I was thinking when I typed that was how they started running out of feedstock for all things, especially fuel for vehicles.

        That was due to the fact that we pulverized their ability to process raw materials. They kept up manufacturing because they had stockpiles of source material for arms and ammo. They still had access to the sea for importing more, but we began to increase naval superiority so that became hazardous.

        Those factors are not based on “invasion.”

        I’m happy with sending in special forces and double agents and bombing the s*** out of their infrastructure, and blockading, and freezing assets, etc. This IS heavy use of air power, along with all those things you keep mentioning.

        My point is that bombing and naval action can bring a country to the point where they are no longer a threat, even when you do not actually defeat them militarily.

        You keep arguing otherwise, and that’s clearly not what the tactical folks mean when they warn us that you can’t win a war with air power alone.

        As far as that last sentence, worrying about resentment is exactly why we keep finding ourselves losing ground. We need people running national defense that understand that resentment is immaterial. It can be manufactured from the very least of things. See “schism,” and church doctrine. Also Alinsky.

        1. German Foodstuff productions while lower at the end of World War 2 was in no way the overriding cause of the downfall and neither was Strategic Bombing by the allies. It was two basic things. Numbers and Oil that is all that brought about the defeat of Germany.

          Numbers meaing the number of soldiers Germany could put in the field and the numbers the USSR, UK and Commonweath, and USA could put in the field plus the loss of 80% of Germany’s oil production capabilities due to be being lost not by Air strike but enemy troops on the ground taking the territory and removing this resource to keep the German War maching oiled and gassed up.

          The Germans up until Hilter began ordering ”scorched earth” were able to produce plenty of raw minerals like Steel, Magnesium, Tungston, Copper, etc… but the engines of War stopped because there was no oil to keep it running. That is not fiction it is historic fact. So, no Allied Bombing, while harrassing, did not stop the Germans. It was losses of Troops and the ability to run the machines.

          There was mass starvation at the very end but it was more due to Hitler’s self-destruction of Germany versus any Allies Bombing.

          The whole point is that a silly little airstrike on Iran will not work…it will not stop the Iranian Nuclear program it will just push it underground. It will not stop the Iranian regime it will embolden them because the people will be mad at a foreign power attacking and harrassing them from the air. So an airstrike would be a failure…putting US troops unneccessarily in harms way and creating a more hostile environment for US troop already based their because of retaliation.

          To let Israel goat the USA into this would be totally STUPID and a big mistake…espacially since there are still other very economically, more efficient, and less risk to US troops ways to acheive the goal.

          1.) Complete embargo of all Iranian good in an out of the Country. No oil out and no good in…no machine parts, no medical supplies, no foodstuffs, no clothes, nothing. Because the Iranian infrastructure is already on life support I imagine this would begin to take effect immediately and reach critical in a few weeks or months.

          2.) Covert actions…Send in foreign spies to secretly back any and all peoples, clubs, organizations , political parties, anarchist, everyone you can find that has a grudge against the Ayatollahs and the current government. Also, cause disruption of basic services like water, electric, and telephone to create an environment of chaos. Stir up as much crap as you can but use no troops only spies to cause unrest.

          3.) Freezing of all assets held abroad. Freeze all Iranian Government and Iranian nationals funds held in foreign banks. This will put a total squeeze on Iran’s ability to function in any world market and reinforce the total embargo of Irainian goods.

          4.) International pressure. Keep up the pressure on no nukes, inspections, and continually bombard the Iranian government with a war of words in the international community to bring as much pressure on them to change as possible.

          Then just sit back and wait. Time then becomes your ally as Irans turns into chaos the people will rise up and demand change. At that point the USA can negociate from a position of strength and stop the nuclear program…or better….there will be a people’s revolutions from within and the Ayatollahs becomes a thing of the past and a new government get put in place that does what the world wants it to….

          I personally think this will take the course of months to put in place and the change will then take place maybe 6 months to a year later. In the meantime, Iran will have no resources to fund their nuclear program and it will stall.

          A side benefit would be the terrorist funding operation in Iran will most likely dry up and terrorist training camps will also probably be closed. Also, the most important other than the naval blockade out side of Iranian territory….NO TROOPS are put unneccessarily in harms way!!!!!!!!

          That would be the whole point of the entire process….Efficient allocation of valuable resources to produce maximum effect and benefit.

          1. I wonder why you keep bringing up “a silly little airstrike.” As if the massive bombing campaigns we are capable of are now suddenly reduced to tonka toy size.

            You know as well as I do that Iran has nowhere near the capacity for self-sustenance that Germany had. And yet we clearly DID reduce Germany’s feedstocks in many ways throughout the country thanks to air and naval power. It was a major effort, and it worked. And BTW “feedstock” is used in areas other than “food”.

            I never wrote that we wiped it all out. Yet you seem to need to “go there” in rebuttal. Since you are forced to inflate my meaning to that level, and simultaneously deflate the meaning of air power to childish proportion in order to sell your claim of “it won’t work,” I’d say I’ve proved my point.

            I already stipulated we need the special ops infiltration. And all of the other things besides.

            1) bombing will be required.
            2) Their nuke stuff is already underground to a large degree, so “driving it underground” is something that’s already built in.
            3) Embolden? Do you really think we’re all that stupid?

            You write as though a victory is possible without risk. That is a fantasy of the left, and of the Ron Paul crowd. It also ignores the fact that Iran’s client terror organizations are already operating around the world, and will continue to do so, until it becomes obvious that Iran has been called to answer for it’s aggression.

            1. And an airstrike is much different than a massive bombing campaign. They only talk about attacking the Iranian Nuclear facilities… that is why it is a ”silly little airstrike”. Also, to massively carpet bomb Iran as you say would not happen right now because the world would not approve and the Russians and China will be the first ones to stop it and Since the USA owes a boat load of money to China…THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. So, my point is accurate and completely valid….a ”silly little airstrike” will not stop the Iranian Nuclear Program, it will push it underground and cause it to be put on a fast track quick start. This ”silly little airstrike” will also cause a backlash that will reinforce support for the current Ayatollahs as the Iranian public will take great offense at a foreign nation airstriking their sovereign nation and kill or suppress any revolutionary force in Iran. This proposed Israeli backed ”silly little airstrike” will only create more risk for the ”boot on the ground” in Iraq and rachet up the level of risks to US interests and citizens around the world.

              Secondly, I never said that German foodstuff were not reduces in World War 2. I said exaclty ”German Foodstuff productions —-while lower—- at the end of World War 2 was in ***no way the overriding cause**** of the downfall ”

              I never said anything about a decline in foodstuffs of Germany during World War 2. That said…were there food shortages in Germany….YES. Was there massive starvation in Germany at the end of the war….YES. Did many Germans die of Starvations…..YES. But lack of food was NOT the overriding cause of downfall of Germany. Again….READ WHAT I WROTE because you obviously DID NOT!

              Lastly, as to your comments on ”special ops infiltration” I disagree and laid out a plan that will achieve the same results and not put any USA troops in Iran. The only ones in immediate danger would be Naval forces enforcing the blockade of Iranian goods to and from Iran. I do not think the USA needs to ”INVADE” as there are plenty of other plans that can achieve the same results using less resources and less risk. A military invasion…(i.e. any US forces entering Iran) such only and always be a very very VERY last resort when ALL other avenues have failed.

              1. “You are quick to seek blood lust and recklessly use Military force.”

                If you accuse anyone else here of “blood lust” again, you’re gone. People that use that accusation are almost as low as pedophiles in my book.

                Take your broken record arguments somewhere else.

          2. Your conclusions about Germany’s available oil resources are incorrect they were rationing even prior to the war. Their pathetic amount of domestic production could not even produce a fuel with a high enough octane rating to power the Luftwaffe and they could only keep it flying by stripping away what imported oil they were getting from everything else including the Wehrmacht. The airstrikes cut deliveries from the Romanian fields and refineries by 50%, and finished the Romanian supply by early 44, the name Ploesti ring any bells? The Germans never captured any significant Russian fields, even with the smaller fields they captured, they never managed to get anymore oil out of captured territories than what they would have received in one year due to their treaty with the USSR. These captured Soviet fields were quickly abandoned almost immediately after their defeat at Stalingrad. While German industrial output did increase for a time, after being driven underground by the continuous Allied air strikes, much of what was produced could not be delivered. Why? Air strikes. While air power on its own cannot win a war, a modern war is not winnable without it.

            To a couple of your other points;

            Embargo. This is a non-starter as with the Russians and Chinese as effectively Iranian allies, Iran cannot be isolated.

            Covert Action. Already underway and thus far it has only managed to slow them up a tad. Iranian operatives have been regularly captured, tried and executed. They got around Stunex by finally replacing all the infected computers, from PCs to Mainframes. The targeted assassination of Iranian scientists, has only slowed them a bit as the have quite a number of young college graduates to take their places, not too mention Russian and Chinese nuclear scientists and their expertise to draw on.

            Freezing Assets. The problem here is they no longer keep the majority of those assets where we have influence enough to get at them, can you say, “diversification”?

            International Pressure. You’re kidding right? Just what do you think we have been doing?

            1. My conclusions are totally correct…the German war machine came to a complete halt when the Russian captured those Romainian oilfields you speak of. No oil no gas…tanks don’t move and become static pillboxes. As to German industrial output it continued to increase up until the final months of the war. Albert Speer created a system which continues to marvel the world on how German industrial output was able to increase production even as raw materials dried up. As to Strategic Bombing….it really have little to no effect on German industrial output because production quotas continues to be met and even increase.

              As I stated before what ended Nazi Germany was Numbers and Oil. Those are the facts and history backs that up perfectly. For example, German production of ”the panzerschreck”…based on the American bazooka had production totalsl of 997,000 in November of 1944, by January 1945 production numbers increased to 1,200,000. (Notes from Albert Speer, Inside the Thrid Reich) Great book and wonderful read if you get a chance.

              I have several books on and by Albert Speer on German methods of production and to quote Albert Speer…”Allied bombing, while disruptive and harrassing, had little effect on the overall production of war armaments of the German Reich”

              So, my statements are corect and based in fact. I suggest you do some more reading.

              As to your points.

              Russian will gladly be willing to halt Iranian oil production shipments to the world. Why? Because Russian can sell more of its oil to replace it….removes competition. China will not really care because the amount of oil from Iran is very small and if given a choice between it largest trade partner (i.e. USA) and Iran. If push comes to shove it will give up on Iran quickly.

              Covert Action. Already underway….then ramp it up….and super charge it but I doubt the spineless Obama administration will do any more…the WIMPS!

              Freezing Assets….you did not really read what I said. I said Government and Nationals…(i.e. individual back accounts) I imagine the rich in Iran (if there are any) will be quite upset when they can no longer have vacation trips and have to stay in Iran all the time because they can have no houses or assets outside Iran.
              It has not been done to its fullest extent.

              International Pressure. You’re kidding right?…..No I am not kidding…why_? Because it helps to build conscensous and adds legitamacy to when military action has to be used…so while useless…it is important to have (i.e. window dressing)

              1. I have read extensively on WW2, and not from a single source. Speer’s “successes” in production were in no small part due to a switch by Allied air commanders from concentrating on industrial targets to an emphasis on attacking tactical targets. (Let’s not forget that “Speer” was also a bit of an egotist as well, however I am aware of his contributions in increasing wartime production.) In other words targeting forward staging areas, infrastructure (roads and rails) and military formations. As to the Romanian oil fields, by the time the Russians managed to “capture” them they were already destroyed and ruined by the stepped up airstrikes carried out in mid 1944. It would be nearly ten years before the Soviets and Romanians had carried out enough repairs to that infrastructure to reach modest output levels. The quality of domestic German oil was so poor it did spur research into synthetic oil and fuel additives, with varied levels of success in both. As I previously stated, while air power cannot win on its own, you cannot win a modern war without it.

                As to Russia and Iran, Russia will not back an embargo nor will China. They see Iran as a thorn in our side, and will take any and all actions to exacerbate that irritation. The Russians will do this for spite alone, even if it provides them with no real advantage. It costs them nothing and gives the government something to show their people that Russia still has influence in the world. Pride is nearly everything in their view and it is a something of a “diplomatic and PR coup” for them if the West has to come to them, hat in hand, to ask for their “help”. If approached on this, they will play the same old game, moving as fast as molasses during the Siberian winter, dragging it out and playing for all the concessions they can get. Besides, look at a map of the area, and then tell me just how you propose to effectively cut off Iran’s access to the market for their oil. http://www.godweb.org/maps/img/middle_east_pol_2003.jpg
                Pay particular attention to the north of Iran, I really don’t think a western navy is going to be able to access the Caspian. I would also point out the current manufacturing sources of Iranian military equipment.

                As to a “ramp up” of covert action beyond what has already been and is being carried out, a dangerous game. It runs into serious risks to what is already a tenuous balancing act in the region. We aren’t talking checkers here.

                As to the freezing of assets, yes, I did read what you wrote. I also laid out why it would prove ineffective. Much of the way the Iranian regime “does things” is based on the old Soviet methods of dispensing privileges to the party hierarchy. As well as how they handle dissent. Freezing Iranian assets depends on securing cooperation from both the Russians and Chinese (extremely unlikely) as well as that of other nations that are less than favorably disposed towards the US. You might get some assets, but by no means will you get enough to create much more than a mild inconvenience to those in question.

            2. My conclusions are totally correct…the German war machine came to a complete halt when the Russian captured those Romainian oilfields you speak of. No oil no gas…tanks don’t move and become static pillboxes. As to German industrial output it continued to increase up until the final months of the war. Albert Speer created a system which continues to marvel the world on how German industrial output was able to increase production even as raw materials dried up. As to Strategic Bombing….it really have little to no effect on German industrial output because production quotas continues to be met and even increase.

              As I stated before what ended Nazi Germany was Numbers and Oil. Those are the facts and history backs that up perfectly. For example, German production of ”the panzerschreck”…based on the American bazooka had production totalsl of 997,000 in November of 1944, by January 1945 production numbers increased to 1,200,000. (Notes from Albert Speer, Inside the Thrid Reich) Great book and wonderful read if you get a chance.

              I have several books on and by Albert Speer on German methods of production and to quote Albert Speer…”Allied bombing, while disruptive and harrassing, had little effect on the overall production of war armaments of the German Reich”

              So, my statements are corect and based in fact. I suggest you do some more reading.

              As to your points.

              Russian will gladly be willing to halt Iranian oil production shipments to the world. Why? Because Russian can sell more of its oil to replace it….removes competition. China will not really care because the amount of oil from Iran is very small and if given a choice between it largest trade partner (i.e. USA) and Iran. If push comes to shove it will give up on Iran quickly.

              Covert Action. Already underway….then ramp it up….and super charge it but I doubt the spineless Obama administration will do any more…the WIMPS!

              Freezing Assets….you did not really read what I said. I said Government and Nationals…(i.e. individual back accounts) I imagine the rich in Iran (if there are any) will be quite upset when they can no longer have vacation trips and have to stay in Iran all the time because they can have no houses or assets outside Iran.
              It has not been done to its fullest extent.

              International Pressure. You’re kidding right?…..No I am not kidding…why_? Because it helps to build conscensous and adds legitamacy to when military action has to be used…so while useless…it is important to have (i.e. window dressing)

  11. What an idiot! I can’t believe I used to listen to that guy and think he was a “conservative leader” who deserved our support! As one raised in Iran, I know what dangers the islamic republic poses to the rest of the world, cause I know what we are taught from very young age about the duty of every muslim which was to wipe out anyone who stood in the way of us establishing islam on every nation on the planet!

    Does Pat Buchanan now ignore all the many attacks on our troops by Iran’s dictatorship and all the axing down of even their own women and children in the streets of Iran, and hope the next Hitler just decides NOT to be a threat overnight because he or our politicians and media tell us “islam is a religion of peace”? Monsterous mistake!

    NEWT Gingrich is right on the actions that are enabling the islamic caliphate with every takeover of nations from Egypt, to Libya to the dumbing down of even many European nations who sadly are arresting their citizens for simply pointing out verses from the qur’an that inspire islamic terrorism!

    1. NO that is not what he said.

      Pat Buchanan said if you compare the two nations Iran and Israel…..
      Iran should be more afraid of Israel because they have 300 nuke to Iran’s none….

      Therefore….Israel IS indeed a greater threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel.

      Which is a correct statement and the facts bear that statement out! I think you are letting the interviewer asking loaded questions and your own personal bias against Pat Buchanan get the better of you and jade your though process.

      Indeed Pat Buchanan is very much a ”Conservative” with a capital ”C”. He has some very hardline views but on this one topic he is 100% correct and having the Israelis convince those idiots in the Obama administrations into making an airstrike on Iran will do nothing but make the situation much worse and more unstable because it will do three things.

      1) It will not topple the Ayatollahs and you know that! Since you say you were raised in Iran you should know that a silly little airstrike will not stop their rule.

      2.) You having been raised in Iran should know it will do nothing more than cause a nationalization of the country behind the Ayatollahs as the ”great Satan” attacks Iran but fails to kill the Ayatollah.

      3.) You should also know that the only thing the airstrike will do is push Iran’s nuclear program into high gear and make it go underground which will make it much harder to keep an eye on.

      So, an airstrike that will not fix the problem will have the opposite effect! That is why a true conservative would be against it where a NeoCon will want to strike just for the sake of striking and flexing military muscle with no positive outcome.

  12. Israelis will have 299 bombs in a couple months, if Iran keeps flexing its degenerate religious muscle.

  13. The difference between the Cold War players and today’s players is that Iran claims that allah commands Islam to wipe Israel and the United States off the map. Nuclear energy my as$. Iran is building a bomb. The Soviets are communists; Iran is Islamic. Big difference! Although, both are genocidal maniacs.

  14. What the f*** is wrong with these brain-dead people?

    Pat Buchanan says he doesn’t see Iran as a threat because they don’t have a nuke and haven’t decided to build one. But Israel has 300 nukes, according to Buchanan, and he asks which is more of an existential threat, Iran or Israel?

    You dimwit know the difference between a rational leader and an irrational one? Between a nutcase who’s dreaming of the Apocalypse every night and a level-headed politician? No?

    And since when Israel is stating her intention to destroy any country on the face of earth? For the life of me, never heard of that. Did you? Then brief us.

    By the way, your own country, the US of A, has 2,200 nuclear warheads: does it make her an even bigger threat than Iran and Israel altogether?

    You effing moron.

    1. NO that is not what he said. He said if you compare the two Iran and Israel…..Iran should be more afraid of Israel because they have 300 nuke to Iran’s none….therefore….Israel IS the greater threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel….Which is a correct statement.

      I also have the same opinion and think that itSHOULD BE that way…..The whole region of the middleast and all the Arab nations should fear Israel’s nuclear capbilities and leave Israel the hell alone!!!!!! (its called deterrence)

      That being said….What’s your beef?? You should be agreeing with Buchanan not calling him a moron.

      1. Iran should be more afraid of Israel because they have 300 nuke to Iran’s none….therefore….Israel IS the greater threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel….Which is a correct statement.

        ROFL. Are you kidding me? Do you have a link showing Israel’s repeated stated intention of destroying Iran? (good luck in your googling)

        If not, how can Israel pose an existential threat to Iran? Because they have nukes? Well then, any nation with nukes capable of reaching Iran (* wink, wink *) poses an existential threat to them, right? Those poor Iranians, how can they sustain that? /sarc

        Please take a few Rationality101 courses and come back debating when done.

        1. ”any nation with nukes capable of reaching Iran (* wink, wink *) poses an existential threat to them, right? ”

          Yes and the USA is the biggest threat to Iran of them all!!!!….the USA is not called the ”great Satan” by Iran for nothing!

          Look I think Iran is a threat to the world…they train terrorist and foster terrorism around the world. They want nukes and should not have them. But letting Israel goat the USA into an silly airstrike (that will NOT work) when there are plenty of other more efficient options now is not the solution is just plain STUPID…..!

          YES…as Pat Buchanan said…Israel is a greater threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel for the simple reason that Israel can make Iran glow in the dark and Iran cannot…..It is a condition/situation that I 100% agree with. What Pat Buchanan said is a fact and 100% correct. He never said anything about Israel wanting to destroy Iran and never advocated them to do so…He is making a factual point about regional power and a correct one.

          So, again, what’s your problem….?? I think you are reading too many things into what was actually said and you need to go back and re watch the video again because everything said was true and accurate.

          In otherwords…Israel SHOULD BE a threat to all the Arab nations to make them leave Israel the HELL alone and let them exist!!!!

          Again,…..what’s the problem with that? I said Israel is now a threat to the whole middleast region….was that bad? Or is it the truth in the context by which I meant it?? Its called deterrance.

          1. “I said Israel is now a threat to the whole middleast region….was that bad? Or is it the truth in the context by which I meant it?? Its called deterrance. ”

            It’s called using the language of the left. Iran is THE threat in the entire, greater Middle East, from the Western coastline of Turkey through the Easternmost “stans” and South beyond Somalia. We all know this.

            You don’t counter such a threat by weasel-worded statements about Israel being “a threat” to Iran. It’s stupid. It’s disgusting. It’s the kind of trick a pro-Iranian operative would pull, and no Israel-supporting Americans are buying it.

            1. Again, you are missing the entire point of the discussion. Answer me this, in the context of strength…who is the greater threat to who??

              Israel with 300 nukes is a greater threat to Iran with 0 nukes or Iran with 0 nukes is a greater threat to Israel with its 300 nukes?

              I agree with you from a terrorist aspect that Iran is a great threat to the middleeast but I would take it a step further and say the whole world. But for the sake of arguement discount that for the moment and answer the question posed.

              If you say Iran then you are wrong…because from a strength aspect Israel’s military is the greater threat to Iran than the reverse. There is no left no right this is just FACT.

              Now if you were to ask me how I feel about it I would say….GREAT! That is the way it should be and should remain. Why? Detterance. Also, Israel is not run by a nutjob that thinks the 12th Iman is coming and the world needs to be rules by Islamic Radicals under a Calaphate. Also, based on the forms of Government, Israel being democratically elected and Iran under the totalitarian rule of the Ayatollahs…I trust Israel more to do the right thing than Iran. So, I firmly believe that Israel should be the greater threat to Iran always under the current conditions.

              The is no weasel wording it is straight forward direct FACT. Which is exactly the point that Pat Buchanan is making. But since you want to read more into the words….you are the one that needs to re-explore your philosophy not me.

              1. If you believe I’ve missed the point, then you have no idea what the point of Scoop’s post is, what we are all telling you, and why Buchanan is such a fool.

                You are using the weasel words of the left and the anti-war clowns here. You don’t have to like it, but it’s a fact.

                We all know Israel has more capability than Iran. Everyone here has told you so, has stipulated this from the beginning, and has proceeded as though it is a well-known fact. Yet here you go again, trying to pretend we don’t seem to understand that Israel has more capacity to defeat Iran than vice versa.

                You are clearly wasting your time.

                1. You are the one wasting time because you do not understand that when this thread was created the Headline was totally misleading and false. If you read it now it is changed so my arguement was correct and right.

                  You then state ”We all know Israel has more capability than Iran. Everyone here has told you so” WHAT?”!?!?!?!? No one has told me so and if you look at my posts I was the one saying and in the video Pat Buchanan is saying the same freaking thing but you refuse to acknowledge that FACT!

                  Now to keep with the whole premise of this thread. My point is that Pat Buchannan and his statements are factually correct and what he said is not controversial because it is true. Israel is indeed a greater threat to Iran than the reverse. If you want to twist it to mean something warped then you are just WRONG because the FACTS of the matter say and show different.

                  It really shows you are not objective and the only fool here is not Pat Buchanan but you!

                  YOU REALLY NEED TO GO BACK AND READ WHAT YOU POSTED AND THEN RE READ MY POSTS….maybe some of the information will actually sink in this time.

                2. I throw BullS&%t flag on you for that one…..I am telling the truth!. First you make stupid assumptions take my posts out of context then imply arguements that I did not make….!

                  You are the l only troll here so you need to grow up.

  15. Pat Buchanan has a long history of Anti-Israel bias. In 1990 he referred to Capital Hill as Israeli occupied territory. His views on Israel and foreign policy are exactly the same as Ron Paul.

    What are we to make of Iran when Ahmadinejad says “Israel must be wiped off the map” or when the chief strategist of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Alireza Forghani, says that “Iran must attack Israel by 2014.” The same regime that annually holds the “World Without Zionism” conference and arms Israel’s enemies with rockets.

    We must look at things from Israel’s perspective. Hitler foreshadowed his intentions with the Jews and he did it. Israel can’t sit on the sidelines and hope it’s only rhetoric. History shows when mad men speak we should listen. Israel is a one-nuke nation, what Hitler accomplished in years can now be done in a day. At best a strike on Iran would would cripple there nuclear facilities. At best a strike on Israel would destroy her existence. So whom is a bigger threat to whom?

    Israel has always been ambiguous about there nuclear weapons and have never threatened to use them. It’s the only thing that gives Israel an advantage due to her size and placement among so many hostile nations. As the saying goes walk softly but carry a big stick. On the other hand no one really trusts the Iranians with nuclear weapons. Especially given there track record of sponsoring terrorism. What makes the Iranian regime different from other countries having nuclear weapons is there religious fanaticism, end-time eschatology, and there fervor hated of Israel. We are not dealing with rationale men here.

  16. See, this is why I despise him, as much as I do Ron Paul and his political family. They’re peas in a pod. The Israelis exercise a Reagonite “peace through strength” policy, threatening no one, and yet they’re the existential threat.

  17. Granted Buchanan was let go at MSNBC, but we have to realize why they hired him in the first place. What kind of honor is it to be a ‘conservative’ on a far left wacko network. Buchanan, Scarborough, and other ‘conservatives’ on MSNBC don’t carry much weight, no matter what they say.

    Even though he was thrown out of the swamp, doesn’t mean he doesn’t still have slime dripping off him. As far as I’m concerned, ‘garbage in, garbage out’, even if it was tossed out.

    1. Pat claims to be a conservative and a republican yet some of the things he has said are more liberal than anything. If it looks like a duck and walks likes a duck…

  18. Oh, I get the correction now. So by Pat’s logic, the USA is the world’s biggest threat.

    That really helps the situation, Pat! Thank you very little.

    The gangs in LA think of the police as a “major threat,” too.

    Hey, it’s true that if you are the rogue element in the picture, if you and your supporters are determined to force your will on your neighbors in defiance of law and in defiance of human decency, then sure, you should probably operate tactically as though the law, or the forces of good, are a “threat.”

    But what kind of moron doesn’t place all of those caveats in their words when spouting off opinions regarding those rogue elements and the forces of evil? This is equivalent to the old saw about Mussolini making the trains run on time, or that life in the concentration camps wasn’t all that bad because they had their own banks and everything.

    (And by the way, this has been Pat’s schtick for a long time now. Go around reminding people that the bad guys aren’t ALL bad. This is definitely Ron Paul Syndrome.)

  19. It’s too bad Buchanan has the typical Paul-bot view of the Mohammedans and the Middel East because Buchanan is quite correct when it comes to domestic issues, especially immigration. His best line?

    “Either the GOP will end mass immigration or mass immigration will end the GOP”.

    Very, very true.

  20. I think Buchanan isn’t insinuating that Israel is a threat, I think he is just incredibly naive about Iran and making the point that Israel should be considered more of a threat if you are going to consider Iran a threat.

    I am surprised actually. I would have thought Buchanan would understand the danger of an Islamic theocracy. Sometimes I think he is brilliant, and then he has his head-slapping moments.

  21. Isreal isn’t seeking to destroy Iran, Iran is more of a threat trying to get a nuke, if they even get 1 nuke they will be the biggest threat in the world. Pat is wrong.

  22. Whew! Buchanan has spent too much time with the dark side at MSNBC and it has now affected his common sense and ability to know right from wrong.

  23. I’ve heard this argument from others before, and it’s stupid. Yes, Israel has nukes, and has had them for quite some time. How often have they threatened to wipe someone off the map with them? How often have they used them? Did they use them on Iraq when Saddam fired scuds on them? Have they used them on Gaza or even threatened to since they have had rockets coming in almost every day since the “palestinians” were given Gaza? Israel has always shown great restraint when it comes to retaliation. Iran, when.. yes I said WHEN they get their nukes will not show such restraint.

    1. It’s like Kansas being threatened with anihilation from Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado and New Mexico while California tells them to stand down.

      If you were Kansas, you’d be loaded to the teeth and constantly vigilant, trying to safeguard your very existence. That’s all Israel is doing.

  24. I will concede that Pat does make a point in his observation of who has the actual “bombs”, however he misses the most important point. Israel, our friend and ally, has not nor will they use an atomic weapon on an Arab state. Iran on the other hand would love nothing more than to not only build it but use it as well. I trust Israel with “the bomb”. I cannot say the same for Iran.

  25. I will concede that Pat does make a point in his observation of who has the actual “bombs”, however he misses the most important point. Israel, our friend and ally, has not nor will they use an atomic weapon on an Arab state. Iran on the other hand would love nothing more than to not only build it but use it as well. I trust Israel with “the bomb”. I cannot say the same for Iran.

  26. Iranian lunatic imam leadership and iminadinnerjacket constantly threatening to exterminate all Jews and annihilate Israel, constantly. AND history shows Iran was helping Hitler during WWII, an obvious agreement of his philosophy.

    Yes, Israel is the problem.

    Did Buchannan suffer a recent head injury?

  27. Iranian lunatic imam leadership and iminadinnerjacket constantly threatening to exterminate all Jews and annihilate Israel, constantly. AND history shows Iran was helping Hitler during WWII, an obvious agreement of his philosophy.

    Yes, Israel is the problem.

    Did Buchannan suffer a recent head injury?

    1. Ok-you beat me to stating that Pat Buchanan is a well known anti-semite.

      All he’s trying to prove is that all rabid anit-semites don’t have to be liberal extremist progressive Democrats.

  28. If Iran has nothing to hide why do they block the UN inspectors access to the area that is suspected of being used as the Nuclear blast testing area? Pat has lost his mind. Iran’s leader repeatedly promises to “Wipe Israel off the Map” and Israel is just supposed to sit back and wait for it to happen? This is a ticking time bomb either way. I stand with the peaceful nation of Israel and its People NOT the Terrorists all around them.

  29. I must disagree with your headline

    Buchanan: Israel a bigger threat to America than Iran

    Buchannan never said Israel was a threat to the USA. He was taking about Iran and Israel…which is the bigger threat to who…Iran with no Nukes or Israel with 300 nukes….that was his quote. Remember it was the USA that gave Israel the Nukes in the first place so I think your headline is totally off base and false because Buchanan never said nor sees Israel as an American threat.

    Actually, he said the real threat are the ones calling for war because it will totally distablize the region even worse than it is now. Look no one disputes that Iran is full of religious zealots and being lead by a crazy man but the whole point is that those calling for war in the USA and I mean Americans are the bigger threat because they are for total distablization of the Middleast.

    The way to fix this is covertly which Buchanan is a strong advocate. He is for helping remove the people in charge of Iran not by invasion but helping those from inside who want to see change and a return to democracy in Iran. So you point at totally off base here and I think you need to re word your headlines because it simple is not true!

    1. “Americans are the bigger threat because they are for total distablization of the Middleast. ”

      Because a destabilized Middle East is bound to work out in our favor somehow?

      Aside from being untrue, it also makes no sense in any strategic way.

      1. huh?? That is not what I said nor is it what I believe Buchanan has ever advocated and you are taking the interview out of context..

        If you think about it, it is a logical arguement. I think Pat Buchanan’s whole point is to keep what we have now in place and try to create an evironment of safety and change the problems through covert methods from inside Iran and the rest of the middleast. Spending more resources on and American invasion, bombs, and blood is not the answer. Keep the terrorist war over there in the middleast…yes….stablize the region….yes……covertly change Iran from the inside…..YES!!! Invade Iran and make the mess worse….NO!

        That I think is his point.

        1. A few of those monster bunker busters will buy a few years, but blockading gasoline that comes into Iran would bring the regime down.

          Send in the special forces to mop of these idiots and start the overthrow.

          1. So you are an advocate of the death of more USA Servicemen and women versus something covert that would only cost a few dollars (metaphorically speaking) and keep the USA out of the threat of retaliation somewhere else in the world for invading a soveriegn nation???

            Come on….there are more options still left on the table to use than just invasion or bombing. That is the whole point…..stop being a neocon warmonger because it will not make the situation better or go away. It will only enflame the situation and make it worse.

                1. If you don’t “get” that striking Iran, than you’ve got a problem.

                  It will, along with other methods I mentioned, fix the problem. Otherwise you are a Chamberlin, ie:

                  -Cutting off their gas imports
                  -Stirring up opposition and arming and funding it
                  -Special forces to do help take down the Mullahs and any other projects as required
                  -Killing of all nuclear supportive scientists in the country if need be

                  etc, etc, etc. YES IT WILL WORK!

                2. Let us agree to disagree then because a little airstrike will not work…It may feel good to satisfy your blood lust and revenge impulse but it will not work…

                  Why, because you cannot topple the Iranian government nor end its Nuclear program with a silly airstrike. It has been done before and it did not work…history proves that one.

                3. Apparently you can’t read what was written in my comments.

                  I was in the military, you were not. Yes, all the above would bring down the regime as numerous Admirals, and Generals in the US have confirmed.

                  Go back to finger painting.

                4. You have no idea my background and YES I was in the military and flew KC-135 refueling tankers.

                  Air strikes will not work…they did not work with the Germans in World War 2, nor Vietnam, nor Bosia….Airstrikes along will not work….Airstikes are only a prelude to ground invasion and if you were in the military you should know that one.

                  Admirals and Generals opinions are like assholes…everyone has got one some where I bet you for every Admiral and General you are saying it will work I can find 2 that say it will not work so you point is moot.

                  It will be a fact that a simple airstrike will not cause the fall of the Irainian government and a end to the Ayatollahs nor will it stop their Nuclear program. It will do just the opposite. It will nationalize the people, and the Nuclear program will disappear underground but this time it will have a stronger urge to use them than before.

                  The way to fix this is by economic starvation and then covert support of rebel forces against the Iranian Ayatollahs. Special Forces strikes will not work either unless you have the support of the people.

            1. “So you are an advocate of the death of more USA Servicemen and women…”

              …and you are NOT?

              Remember this post, in THIS THREAD, LESS THAN 40 MINUTES EARLIER… by YOU:

              “I think the USA should keep alot of boots on the ground in Iraq and Afganistan…” and this is the real SICK kicker of your statement – “…until the whole region stablizes.”

              Excuse me, but just what the hell do you think happens to sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers who wear those BOOTS, when they are in Iraq and Afghanistan?

              Well?

              1. An airstrike on Iran will not make them safer…it will actually make the situation alot worse and put more at risk around the world because it will only embolden them to strike at non military targets like overseas American schools or business interests or tourists.

                I got news for you….the US military regardless what either the DemocRATs or Republicans say the USA will have a military presence in Iraq for a long long time. All an airstrike will do now is make matters harder for the military to control the areas they are trying to control.

                Look I am in no way advocating total wimp out on this. I just think that we can send in foreign spies with lots of money and cause unrest in Iran that combined with a total oil and produces embargo will cause an internal civil war in Iran and the situation will fix itself. Presto…no undo harm situations for US forces invading Iran….no accusations of the USA being a facist nations invading others….

                I think there is already plenty of instability in Iran and all an airstike will do is nationalize the Iranian nation and make it harder to create and environment of change because the USA will be viewed more as an aggressor than it is now.

                Trust me…I want Iran to fall….I do not want them to have Nukes at any cost….but at this moment in time there are plenty of other ways to do it with knife than using an axe. The military and a military strike should be the final last….option not the first or sixth!!!!

                P.S. Answer me this…where do you think those boots will be safer?? In an American controled nations in secure facilities or out in the open in Iran? I think in Iraq is the safer option given the choice of the two.

                1. I like Newt Gingrich’s idea of making the HQ of the department of Homeland Secruity be in Texas or Nevada or Arizona and have all the 23,000 agents stationed in those three states versus in some airconditioned safe office in Washington DC. I imagine with that plan the southern borders would magically be much safer.

        2. did you see context of the Russian Tv put the interview in: Israel bigger threat with 300 nukes than Iran with none. I don’t care where his point is coming from his comments are being used against Israel and in favor for Iran. He really stepped in it, but hey it looks like he might have a new career on RT programming.

        3. I know of no people in positions of responsibility that are calling for an invasion of Iraq. So it’s a pointless exercise in hypotheticals. Even the Israelis wouldn’t want to “invade” Iraq.

          This schtick of Buchanan’s (see what I did there?), to always play devils advocate for the bad guys, is a parlor trick he always uses to make himself seem thoughtful.

          Any fool knows the she-wolf is only trying to feed her young.

          1. Where have you been living for the past few months…under a rock???

            Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade his Cabinet to authorise an attack on Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons programme.

            The news was revealed by a government official who refused to be identified. (via SkyNews November 2011)

            Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has implied that Israel’s patience with the Islamic Republic is growing thin and that diplomacy may soon come to an end. (via Christian post November 2011)

            U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta held a secret meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month and officials briefed on the outcome of the talks said the former delivered an urgent message from U.S. President Barack Obama. Panetta reportedly told Netanyahu that Obama is seeking Israel’s guarantee that it will not strike Iran without Washington’s approval. (via International Business Times Nov. 2011)

            You said….”no people in positions of responsibility”

            How about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel or Leon Penetta or Obama ”the one”???

            Or maybe you missed these…

            UK and U.S. ‘draw up joint plan to attack Iran

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056873/Iran-attack-drawn-UK-US-Middle-East-tensions-rise.html#ixzz1n8l3S4Yk

            or the many many other articles and quotes from a whole bunch of various NeoCon who are in positions of authority in the USA, UK, and Israel.

            Come on….I know you are smarter than that!

            1. And you interpret these things to mean that they wish to “invade” Iran? How do you know what the actual plans they would be willing to use are?

              Israel does not have enough “boots” to cover the massive amount of “ground” required to maintain an sustain an invasion force. Not. gonna. happen.

              Also, the US has people in the Pentagon who’s job it is to create plans to invade Cuba, France, The Barbados, Chile, Britain, Russia, Japan, Australia, and any other country you care to name. So that’s nothing new. It’s what smart military people do, just like smart gun owners spend time at the range.

              We probably already have people planning to fix that “Kansas problem” Rshill7 brought up. And their little dog, too.

              1. Hey, K-Bob! I didn’t know you lived under a rock. News to me. How are the acoustics down there? You’re gonna need a bigger amp, methinks 🙂

                1. There are days I’d like to live under a rock–I’m not liking a whole lot of what I see above ground! 😉

              2. The whole point is a little airstrike will not fix the situation and will make it worse and increase the risk of retaliation. If the Israelis want to make an airstrike on Iran…great let them do it and the world will view them as the agressor….why do you think they are trying to get the USA to do it…so they don’t have to an can sit back and said we are not aggressors.

                Besides…the whole plan will not work because the USA does not know where all the Iranian facilities are…and if you think that they do then boy are you naive.

                It’s a stupid plan based on a stupid idea and I say let the Israelis take the risk because the USA military has enough to worry about right now.

      2. I do believe that this administration IS for total destabilization in the Mideast–It’s no coincidence that it’s Muslim Brotherhood taking over in all these countries where we’ve disrupted the regimes.

          1. LOL! Hopefully, we’ll have a virtual airstrike in NOV that just removes him from the WH and our business! Just send him on his merry way–he has 57 states to choose from.

            1. I personally prefer an invasion…..A GOP Republican Guard invasion…! lol

              One that puts a true Conservative back in the White House not some RINO or Big Government Guy like GW Bush…..this combined with a corrodinated frontal attack that eliminates the enemy libtards in the Congress as well….. TOTAL VICTORY!!!

            2. I forgot…the big ”O” says he has been to 57 states and has 1 to go…so he thinks there are 58 states not including Alaska and Hawaii so there are actually 60 in his world.

              1. And “they” portray GW and Sarah Palin as idiots! LOL! This narcissist is NEVER taken to task for his “gaffes.”

  30. Poor Pat, we need to cut him some slack– remember folk’s, he just left MSNBC and he’s still going through withdrawals. He needs time to detox from the liberal brainwashing he subjected himself too for the last decade. Or maybe not?

  31. Come on Mr. Buchanan, I was around during the Cuban missile crisis too, your anti-Semitic tendency is showing.

    1. I’m really, really afraid that 10 mos away is going to equal 4 more of the same regime only far worse than it is now.

  32. Only way to deal with this kind of inflammatory rhetoric is to take up a collection and buy him a one way ticket to Iran. He should then feel safe & secure.

  33. That’s our ally, you dope. Don’t you know the difference between a friend an enemy?

    (God forgive us! He doesn’t speak for all of us!)

  34. Iran is more of a threat to the US than Israel because Israel is not suicidal, same difference goes with the comparison between the Soviets during the Cold War era and the Iranians now. Ahmadinejad and his government believe that in order to bring back the 12th imam an apocalypse is needed, thus the Iranians are hell bent on building the nuclear bomb to bring the apocalypse sooner rather than later.

      1. It’s “crazy talk” because it is about crazy people who believe crazy things. It is perfectly accurate though.

        Robbyahm is right and you are wrong. You can keep reading Archie and Jughead though…with your eyes closed.

      2. It’s “crazy talk” because it is about crazy people who believe crazy things. It is perfectly accurate though.

        Robbyahm is right and you are wrong. You can keep reading Archie and Jughead though…with your eyes closed.

    1. Too bad, your deft use of logic, deduction and reason would seem to imply you were a Paul backer. Carry on your illusions with the rest of these warmongers for now, Paul and Buchanan will be ready to welcome you to civilization whenever you’re ready.

      1. wrong Klejdys…..I am not a PaulBot and I agree 100% with what drphibes said because he is 100% RIGHT about what Buchanan said.

        The only one here is deficit of logic, deduction, and reason is you because you do not listen nor understand…nor do you know anything about Pat Buchanan because all you know is what you see from the Lamestream media.

      2. If a Caliphate is your idea of civilization, keep it. Is your name Neville Chamberlain by any chance, or is Ringo Wrongo fine with you?

      3. If a Caliphate is your idea of civilization, keep it. Is your name Neville Chamberlain by any chance, or is Ringo Wrongo fine with you?

        1. Nope…..don’t believe in that either. I think the USA should keep alot of boots on the ground in Iraq and Afganistan until the whole region stablizes. I prefer to keep the war in the middleast versus have it spread. But I do not think the USA can handle much more because resources are stretched very thin. I think the best courses of action are covert….which is what Buchanan is an advocate.

          Too much blood and treasure has already been spent. Let the USA consolidate on what it has accomplished instead of loosing it all because you are too stretched in your resources.

          1. “I think the USA should keep alot of boots on the ground in Iraq and Afganistan until the whole region stablizes.”

            Over 3500 years of recorded history… and you are speaking about our Republic keeping “alot of boots on the ground” there… until, (and this one brought a sad chuckle)… “the whole region stablizes”.

            The WHOLE region – STABLE?

            …but I digress.
            CM Sackett

            1. True….and I agree the middleast will never bestable….but to what degree I am talking about we can define….As to Arabs and Israelis living in total peace….I personally do not see that ever happening….But a do see situations that will not unnecessarily put service men and womens lifes at risk. Doing an Airstrike on Iran now or invading will not be the answer. I think there are better alternatives like starving the Iraninan economy by blockading their oil to the point their own people revolt and overthrow the whole government….I think that is a better use of energy than bombing them because I makes us feel good but does not fix the problem.

              So, yes I agree there will never be total peace in the middleeast but I do believe there can be acheived some degree of stability for the region.

          2. 13krieger:

            Don’t believe in what? The desired Caliphate? Neville Chamberlain? What?

            Remember, your “belief” one way or the other does not change their desires and goals any more than it changes how the laws of physics behave 🙂

            1. Both…..I think a Caliphate should be stopped and I do not agree with Ron ”Nutbag” Paul and his ideas of appeasement like Neville Chamberlain.

              You said;
              ”P.S. The region will stabilize when it turns to glass or when hell freezes over.”

              So, you wish for the USA to be the greatest mass murderer since Stalin or Mao? Really you want to really be that evil??

              1. Doood. How’s about confining your responses to what people actually say, OK?

                Did I say anything at all about the USA doing anything at all?!

                No, I did not. They’ll no doubt kill each other. I am on Israel’s side.

                If you don’t think Islamicists desire a worldwide Caliphate, then you can remain wrong. I’m OK with that. If you think the region will ever be stable, you’re Peter Pan.

                Start your remedial studies with Isaac and Ishmael.

                My caveat about hell freezing over or the place turning to glass is another way of saying, “ain’t gonna happen as long as they both shall live”.

                1. I never said that Islamicist radicals don’t want a Calaphate….I said I am against that….so maybe you have not read what I am saying.

                  And Yes….I believe some degree of stability will come to the region so US forces can withdraw and get the hell out of there….(i.e. stability in Iraq would be a start)

                  Get a working democratic government in Iraq is a part of stability…I never said that there would not be future conflicts…that whole region has been conflict from over 2000 years.

                  So, I agree with you that it will never be a peaceful region of the world but I do think that some small (even very small) degree of stability can be achieved on some scale. Again Iraqi democratic government would be a start. The whole point is lay down some exit strategy for the US military to get out of the middleeast to begin with and save some face and demonstrate acheivement.

                  ……..that whole region of the world is a nation killer….look at the Romans, Ottomans, British….etc….History is full of them.

    2. Finally someone sees the falseness of this whole thread!

      KUDOS drphibes!!!! for being the first one to post the truth and think logically about it!!!!!

      TWO THUMBS UP!!!!

    3. He said in fact that given their respective nuclear arsenals, Israel presents a greater existential threat to IRAN than vice versa. The fact that among others some people in Israel want the US to get militarily involved can not be called a threat to the US by any measure. Buchanan’s comment is worse than sophistry nonetheless. The size or existence of a nuclear arsenal does not determine the intention with regard to peace OR war.

  35. I guess when God created man, he decided to throw in a few nuts like Pat to make the rest of us grateful for our sanity

    1. I do not think Pat Buchanan marginalized himself…I think he did quite well given that the question in itself was quite loaded. Buchanan is a sharp guy and know what the issues are and he is in no way afraid of out ally Israel. What Buchanan is afraid of is all the idiots calling for the USA to strike at Iran and further destablize the middleast worse than it is today.

      If you have ever read Buchanan….which it sounds like you haven’t, you would know that Pat Buchanan is for the covert fall of Iran from the inside and not out right war. Why? Simple…..IT WORKS and would create a longer lasting peace that just a USA invasion and war….it would also not cost any US lives.

      Please think before you speak because you statement is wrong.

      1. Even if it were true that Pat believes in covert operations, he should shut his mouth about one country wanting war. No one wants war except for tyrants who want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth! It’s laughable when he says Israel is more dangerous! When was the last time they used nukes on another country?

        1. It is the truth! Israel IS more dangerous to Iran than the reverse and the USA helped make it that way for a purpose….It is called the ”MAD” principle.(mutual assured destruction) which is a creation of the cold war. If you make yourself more dangerous then other leave you alone.

          However, it is a flawed policy because the religious zealots don’t really care how many die as long as the cause is won. (today) But the principle is still keeping the Arabs at bay because it has stopped an invasion of Israel since 1967…when the USA gave them the nukes.

          1. It’s the fact that the Arab world knows Israel is a responsible power that has been the reason that most other than Iran/Syria (the rogue regimes) have not felt the need to develop nuclear weapons programs. All of a sudden when Iran is getting close, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan etc etc are all sudddenly talking about dev. nukes and there is fear of an arms race.

            Further, it would be nice if you got the basic facts right. Israel’s nuclear program has had nothing to do with keeping the Arabs at bay as you state. First USA did not give Israel any nukes, second your theory is absurd in light of the major war in 1973, a SNEAK ATTACK by multiple Arab countries, and a number of conflicts since.

            1. Yes the USA did give Israel nukes! It is not official policy and both governments deny this but there is enough documented evidence that the USA did infact give Israel nuclear weapons for the purposes of national security.

              Later that year (1970), U.S. President Richard Nixon in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir pressed Israel to “make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program”, so maintaining a policy of nuclear ambiguity. Before the Yom Kippur War Peres nonetheless wanted Israel to publicly demonstrate its nuclear capability to discourage an Arab attack, and fear of Israeli nuclear weapons may have discouraged Arab military strategy during the war from being as aggressive as it could have been.

              And how did the Israelis get the nuclear materials….it was done under the guise that Israel’s first bombs may have been made with highly enriched uranium stolen in the mid-1960s from the US Navy nuclear fuel plant operated by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, where sloppy material accounting would have masked the theft.

              Oh yeah….I really believe that one….NOT! I forget where I learned all about it but there are documents that are internal US Government documents allowing US nuclear materials to be shipped directly to Israel via US NAvy transport ships directly out of the Savannah Nuclear Materials plant in Augusta Georgia USA.

              That is how Israel became a Nuclear power in the world.

              I am pretty sure you can find these documents online but with all the interest in Israeli nuclear weapons it may have been cleaned from the Internet.

              1. FYI The Dimona Israel Nuclear reactor was started up in early 1962/1963. I’m glad you are all for conspiracy, but the USA did not give Israel any nuclear weapons. Period.

                1. No offense, but you don’t know what you are talking about. Israel has never released any of its materials for testing, nor do you run weapons grade material for a reactor, Reactors run on 20% enriched uranium. Plutonium is produced from Uranium in all reactors when it absorbs neutrons, this is called spent fuel. This is then reprocessed into weapons grade plutonium in a reprocessing plant.

                  Iran is producing both plutonium, and enriching uranium, two seperate methods that can lead to nuclear weapons.

                2. Did I say they did? I never said they did. I said there was a study released that was an internal comparison of the nuclear materials used by the Israelis and compared to the nuclear signature of those in the USA and they tie directly back.

                  Look it up for yourself.

                  Also, I said the process take years to get it up to nuclear ”weapons grade”. So you don’t read so well.

      2. On the contrary I think Buchanan is plain wrong…we should attack Iran and end their nuclear ambitions for good.

        And covert is fine if it works so far it has not….so I reiterate nice job of marginalizing yourselves Pat, and 13krieger.

        1. No he is not wrong to say that an invasion/bombing and war with Iran is wrong….because right now it is wrong, unneccessary, and the use of alternates is a much better alternative than risking the lives of service men and women for an airstrike that will not work because you do not know where all of them are and two it will make the situation a total mess and worse than it is now!

          I say your position and you are the only one marginalized here for being a stupid War Mongering NeoCon that cannot see anyother ways but WAR! There are very viable alternatives they should be exhaustivley explored…not just bomb them because Israel says so…that is negligent, and criminal…!

          1. I’d rather be a live stupid warmonger than a dead stupid pacifist fool….if you think the brightest minds in Israel have not looked at all the scenarios, and that Buchanan knows more about the situation than they do than you are truly and completely moronic.

            …oh BTW, see where ad-hominem name-calling leads you?

            1. I am most definietly not a pacifist and neither is Pat Buchanan. Just because you say Israel has looked at it does not make it so and should NOT be a reason the USA should put itself at extended risk preforming an operation that will CHANGE NOTHING! (we are in Iraq because of WMDs that the Israelis told us existed remember??)

              Bombing for bombings sake will not fix the issue….it did not with the Germans in World War 2 nor in Vietnam nor in Bosia and it will not work here….All it will do is put more troops and USA business interests at risk around the world. I do not have th say so…because HISTORY proves that FACT!

              P.S. Airstikes are a prelude to war and ground invasion. Are you prepared to have more die because Israel says to bomb Iran?? I don’t think so because there are better ways to achieve the downfall of Iran but you seem to be too stupid to see that. History shows us the way!

              1. Even suggesting that Israel has not taken every possible scenario into account shows you to be to ignorant to debate.

                1. I throw a bullsh&t flag on you for that one. Because history says you are wrong!

                  Remember it was the Israelis that were convinced and help convience USA that Iraq had WMDs.

  36. Well, if it’s not all the Americans killed by Iranian-backed Sadr loyalists, then it must be all of those IED’s and terror dollars flowing out of Iran that has Pat so scared of Israel.

    1. you are the one who is wrong because you just read the headline and made a comment. that is not what Pat Buchanan is saying and you need to watch the video next time before making a stupid comment with no knowledge.

      1. Maybe it’s YOU who needs to listen more carefully! He said Iran has none while Israeli has 300 atomic bomb. He believes Israel is more dangerous.

        1. No and you need to read my full post at the bottom. So you look more like a idiot now because you too are misinformed and do not know the whole story. Pat Buchanan is talking about who is a bigger threat to who…Israel to Iran or Iran to Israel…..because Israel has 300 nukes and Iran has 0…none…zippo…. That would make Israel more of a threat to Iran than the reverse.

          Also….you will notice that the RightScoop realized her mistake and edited the headline…..SEEE!

        2. No and you need to read my full post at the bottom. So you look more like a idiot now because you too are misinformed and do not know the whole story. Pat Buchanan is talking about who is a bigger threat to who…Israel to Iran or Iran to Israel…..because Israel has 300 nukes and Iran has 0…none…zippo…. That would make Israel more of a threat to Iran than the reverse.

          Also….you will notice that the RightScoop realized her mistake and edited the headline…..SEEE!

                1. I think a better headline would be

                  Buchanan: ”Israel more of a threat to Iran than Iran to Israel.”

                  Because that is actually what he said and is accurate.

                2. Then the USA is the biggest threat of them all…and the world better listen to us!!! lol.

                  Listen, I think he is directing his concerns to the people in the USA calling for war as the real threat because all war will do is just make the mess bigger than it is now and there are other options that can still be used versus invasion or airstrikes that put USA servicemen and women at risk and also put civilians and business interest around the world at greater risk of retaliation.

                  If you think about it, it is a logical arguement. I think Pat Buchanan’s whole point is to keep what we have now in place and try to create an evironment of safety and change the problems through covert methods from inside Iran and the rest of the middleast. Spending more resources on and American invasion, bombs, and blood is not the answer. Keep the war over there in the middleast…yes….stablize the region….yes……covertly change Iran from the inside…..YES!!!

                  That I think is his point.

                  Also, if you noticed the video is heavily edited and the interviewer gave Buchanan a pretty loaded question.

                3. You should read more of Pat before you defend him. He wrote this on Town Hall a few weeks ago.

                  http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2012/02/07/who_wants_war_with_iran/page/full/

                  Technically you may be right in that he IS saying the Israel is a bigger existential threat to Iran, but Pat has always had a vaguely anti-semetic history. He is a good thinker, but as someone said before, like Paul, he has some wires crossed. Even in the threat to strike first Israel has NEVER suggested they would WIPE THEM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. So Pat, you should keep you veiled anti-semetism to yourself.

                  Here’s the “money” quote from that article:

                  “Who, then, wants war with Iran?

                  All those who would like to see exactly that happen to Iran.

                  And who are they? The Netanyahu government and its echo chamber in U.S. politics and media, the neoconservatives, members of Congress, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

                  And as the Obama administration is the major force in U.S. politics opposed to war with Iran, its defeat in November would increase, to near certitude, the probability of a U.S. war with Iran in 2013.

                  Yet if the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community are correct — Iran does not have a bomb and has not decided to build a bomb — why should we go to war with Iran?

                  Answer: Iran represents “an existential threat” to Israel.

                  But Israel has 200 atomic bombs and three ways to deliver them, while Iran has never built, tested or weaponized a nuclear device. Who is the existential threat to whom here?

                  And though a U.S. war on Iran would be calamitous for Iran, it would be no cakewalk for Americans, who could become terrorist targets for years in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Baghdad’s Green Zone, Lebanon and even here in the USA.

                  Year 2012 is thus shaping up as a war-or-peace election, with Republicans the war party and Democrats the peace-and-diplomacy party.

                  And as the months pass between now and November, this will become clear to the nation.”

                4. Yep…I read the article long before the interview on this thread and here is the key part of the stupid thought process of the Obama administration on this point which to me is the key part of the interview.

                  ”And as the Obama administration is the major force in U.S. politics opposed to war with Iran, its defeat in November would increase, to near certitude, the probability of a U.S. war with Iran in 2013.

                  Yet if the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community are correct — Iran does not have a bomb and has not decided to build a bomb — why should we go to war with Iran?

                  Answer: Iran represents “an existential threat” to Israel.

                  But Israel has 200 atomic bombs and three ways to deliver them, while Iran has never built, tested or weaponized a nuclear device. Who is the existential threat to whom here?”

                  Which to me says that America needs to view Israel as more the threat to Iran than the reverse…..which I interprete as….keep the hell out of the situation for now because Israel can handle it own!!!!!! They (Israel) are the bigger and stronger power and this needs to be handled interregionally by the nations of the region not have a sledgehammer (USA military) come in causing harm to USA Servicemen and women making a worse mess of the situation.

                  As Buchanan so elequently put it in the very next sentence.

                  ”And though a U.S. war on Iran would be calamitous for Iran, it would be no cakewalk for Americans, who could become terrorist targets for years in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Baghdad’s Green Zone, Lebanon and even here in the USA.”

                  See….there is a method to the maddness and a logic that Buchanan has about this and I happen to agree with his conclusions.

                5. I agree with Buchanan’s assessment of a war with Iran as well, BUT that is NOT what anyone is saying at this juncture.  The bombing of Iran by Israel does NOT equal us going to war with Iran and/or putting ground troops there.  I think the arguement by most conservatives is that we say, like so many of us in the military would say, “We got your back!!”  The Obama administrations is not saying that.  They are acting as impediments.  Obama is more afraid of Israel bombing Iran not just beause it pulls us in but because it further exposes him as the puss that he is.
                  Furthermore, Buchanan’s crazy arguement that.. if our intelligence and their intelligence.. and they say they don’t have one.. and they say they want it only for energy, so we should believe them.. is complete lunacy.  Buchanan is smarter than that; but Buchanan has ALWAYS been an isolationist.  He was in the 90’s when I supported him in his presidential bid.  And to some degree I still agree with those (mind our own f’in business views).  But if anyone thinks a nuked up Iran means a balance of power in the Middle East, then they are surely smoking crack or harbor some anit-Israel views.  Cause those nuts in Iran want nothing more than chaos and destruction.

                6. no no no…..I think that if Israel wants to bomb Iran…then let them have at it!!!! Let them do it….the USA should not be goated into air strikes simply because Israel wants them bombed. If they want it then do it themselves.

                  …I and I believe Buchanan’s point is that the USA should not be involved at this point especially with any airstrikes will produce nothing in favor of a resolution and all an US airstrike will do is make the situation harder for the US military in Iraq to complete their current tasks. Let Israel take the brunt of that aggressive act.

                  As to you statement on ”Buchanan has ALWAYS been an isolationist”…I disagree.

                  He is anti-NAFTA and I think that NAFTA has been a complete failure and proved him correct. But I would not call Buchanan an isolationist I think he is very pro-American business and keep jobs at home.

                7. We’re not disagreeing for the most part. I’m just saying that I don’t think anyone is making the case that we are the active participants in an Israeli bombing.. other than re-fueling support, etc.  I have not heard one conservative argue for being an active participant.  So I agree with that assessment, but we have to have their backs.
                  I agree with some of his ideas and that NAFTA is a failure, but he was very much an isolationist conservative a la Ron Paul a decade or so ago.  Again, I am NOT in favor of nation building and inserting ourselves in every situations (read Syria, Egypt, etc etc) but Israel is NOT the same scenario.  They are an ally as much as GB and Australia. So we have to have their back.
                  Regardless of what Pat really means (his political usefulness is wanning) the situation with Iran is not going away whether we go active or passive.  And I will argue that this is a much better use of our resources (financial and military) than Iraq and Afghanistan could have ever dreamed of being.

                8. I wonder why a sane human being would compare a democratically elected government with a theocratic Islamic extremist regime, considering what each could possibly do if they chose to.

Comments are closed.