C'mon, Pat Buchanan is an anti-semite. It's not a cooincidence that EVERY issue that has ANYTHING to do with Jews elicits the predictable position ...

I don't feel the same way as Pat about Israel, but you can't make me give a shit about Paraguay and I'll never concern myself with what's good for Paraguayans in balance with what's good for the United States. If they ever think up a label for that, slap it on me.
Also, I've had enough Robert DeNiro to last a lifetime and think he plays "Robert DeNiro" in every single film he's in.
In this latest article of Buchanan's, all he said was "Our goals going into WWII were XYZ. Did we achieve XYZ?"

I haven't read anything to make me think he's anti-Semite. I do think he doesn't give a rat's ass about Israel.
I do, though.
I also think if he wants to feel that way, it's his lookout.

I'd say that the extermination of 6 million European Jews (and the attempt to do ALL of them in), as well as gypsies, the infirm, homosexuals and the otherwise "undesireables," as well as a global war of aggression that killed 40 million people sort of, uh, called for, uh, intervention. The iron curtain was a pretty unfortunate consequence, but the entirety of Europe (and perhaps Russia) under National Socialism would have been a vastly worse catastrophe. And sometimes, you just have to fight evil as it attempts to devour Western Civilization.

I don't run around calling people anti-semites willy-nilly, but I get a very strong vibe off of Pat, as he consistently touts Christianity and poos on anything vaguely Jewish. Perhaps I'll do some research and write up a post on it. And the implication is that Buchanan's anti-semetism influences his decision to declare WWII a wasted effort, essentially saying that the Nazi death machine was an acceptable alternate consequence. If Americans or even Christians were being massacred by the millions, I doubt that Pat would have such reservations.

And what the heck does Paraguay have to do with anything?

Most Americans (even neoconservative interventionists) don't "give a shit about Paraguay and ... concern (themselves) with what's good for Paraguayans in balance with what's good for the United States," they consider what is good for the United States, and how what is bad for Paraguay affects that.

And in some cases, like when an entire continent is under siege by a bunch of nuts massacring people in gas chambers, led by a raving mad fascist, it's not only America's best interest to fight, it's our moral obligation. You know, because we're AMERICANS.

I do hope you read Stephen Green's fisking of Buchanan's latest nonsense. He treats his fair points fairly, but attacks his dishonest/inaccurate historical revisionism.

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007819.php

Actually, maybe he's not an anti-semite; maybe this is a better description (he just plays someone kind of like one but not quite on tv):

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005921.php

Bill, I do believe you're talking down to me.

A happy outcome of WWII was the stopping of the Holocaust. For that reason alone, the war in Europe was worth our fighting. It was not, however, the reason that the United States went to war.

What Donna wrote (^^) and (^^).

Bill, I do believe you're talking down to me.

Well, I got a similar impression from this ...

but you can't make me give a shit about Paraguay and I'll never concern myself with what's good for Paraguayans in balance with what's good for the United States.

Attacking Buchanan is not quite the same thing as attacking isolationism. (though I'm critical of that too)

The reason the US went to war was because Roosevelt realized that Hitler's domination of Europe threatened Western Civilization and Democracy (Japan was the convenient spark, followed by Germany's declaration on us). That being said, one of the underlying symptoms that Hitler's fascism was so threatening to western Civilization was the fact that he killed over 20 million people for purposes of slavery and genetic "spring cleaning."

So many of Buchanan's theories conveniently approach the precipice of racist, far right wing isolationism (similar to the "America First!" crowd in the 30's and 40's), and his distortion (often via omission) of historical facts have to make one wonder - what is the motivation?

I could write an airtight thesis that the Jews didn't have it so bad during the Holocaust, compared to what the Slavs got, yet the historical focus centers on the Jews ... but if I did it 15 times (and it wasn't even airtight), one might begin to wonder why I was so intent on making the point.

When people call other people Nazis, I'm going to laugh at them. That includes references by Green to a "Goose-stepping Pat."
Left-wing, right-wing, I don't care. I'll laugh at all of them.
If he doesn't support Israel, that's his call. I don't support Paraguay. I offer the comparison completely "Uhm"-free. I'll also reiterate my dislike for the acting of Robert DeNiro.
I think Buchanan's a fossile -- a hardcore isolationist. His statements are extreme, but don't cross the line. Some of the stuff Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin say is also quite extreme. We all have opinions. People should be able to discuss things without calling their opponent a Nazi. Some cannot resist the urge.

Helping England was important. My dad joined the Navy before WWII, during Lend-Lease and was made an Armed Guard on merchant ships. Our ships were being attacked and sunk up and down the Atlantic seaboard. That also played an important part in why we went to war. There were many good reasons for our going to war.
What happened after the war to the countries gobbled up by Russia is a sad story in itself.

BTW, I've never pulled the lever for Buchanan. ;)

Buchanan's argument "Our goals going into WWII were XYZ. Did we achieve XYZ?" isn't a legit argument since he leaves out (conveniently) an awful lot of what makes up the XYZ. Buchanan complains about the non-necessity of the allies "liberating Germany", which makes no sense, are there any WW2 vets going to say the goal was to liberate Germany (or Japan)? The object was to beat them. Did anyone care whether Hitler was elected or not through a democratic process? Buchanan thinks this is an important point, but I sure don't see it.

The allies liberated France, Belgium, Greece, etc., since there were German troops occupying them.

His synopsis of what Churchill and USA let the soviets get away with is pretty goofy, too, since Buchanan seems to think Churchill was a time-reader and knew the Soviets in the future were going to break their promises to allow free elections in Poland, etc. Buchanan seems to suggest the allies are culpable for the actions of "Uncle Joe" but that's pretty crazy, it's not as if anyone had any control over that guy.

Hey, if an army of Robert DeNiro fans were about to invade Paraguey, the Paraguyens would have 100% of my sympathy.

All good and valid points, Erik. Although, Churchill did have some idea of what he was getting into with Stalin, as he made that crack along the lines that if the Devil was willing to fight Hitler, he (Churchill) would just have to find something nice to say about the Devil.
Buchanan's a famous bomb-thrower. I take what he says with a large grain of salt. I was just getting a rise out of the people Buchanan was getting a rise out of. The name-calling is just wrong.

I was almost torn to pieces once by a pack of unbeknownst to me Deniro fans, when I scoffed at his acting prowess. It was a traumatic, life-scarring incident that haunts me to this day. :)