gdp's Comments

Patrick J. Buchanan : Daily Show Under Fire for Covering Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:14:16 +0000

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that Jon Stewart was courageous for hosting these guests. I think he is a very decent human being and he deserves credit for hosting critics of Israel even though he is Jewish himself, while others have been preventing any criticism of Israel to be voiced in public. But the fact that only a Jew can host a program like this and keep his job while an American Christian or Muslim would be crucified in the press as an anti-semite (and possibly lose his or her job) shows that on some very important issues Jews have freedom of speech while non-jews do not. I consider that a problem.

Patrick J. Buchanan : The Affirmative Action Nobel

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:40:54 +0000

How do you know the female recipients had "far less imposing credentials than previous- and/or current-year male prize recipients"? One female recipient was an ethnic German from Romania who wrote about living in communist Romania under Ceausescu and she won the prize for literature. The other female received the prize for economics (sharing it with a male recipient). Are you an authority on literature and economics? I voted for Obama and I think he's a significant improvement over George Bush. That does not qualify him for the Nobel Peace prize. Considering his recent hate speech against Iran, I do not think he has earned the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe in 3 years or after his second term. On Gaza, he has backed down against his opposition to new Israeli settlements. The UN recently condemned Israel for war crimes in Gaza and the first reaction from our gov't was to criticize the report. If you are not aware of this its because the strong jewish influence in our media has ensured any criticism of Israel will get as much attention in this country as Australian Rules Football does. Not only does Obama need to do more, he needs to show some backbone and not let Jewish lobbyists shape the USA's foreign policy.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Those Tricky Iranians Are Now Threatening To Cooperate

Fri, 9 Oct 2009 02:50:14 +0000

I love the title of this article. I knew it was propaganda immediately when Obama and Sarkozy were making their accusations. The west is participating in a "hatefest" of Iran because it dares to stand up for its rights and help Israel's victims (Palestinians and Lebanese). The world knows the justification for the creation of Israel was the holocaust and President Ahmadinjad asks the valid question: Why do Palestinians have to suffer and give up their land for an event that occurred in Europe? His questioning of the holocaust is an expression of "free speech" - something the west preaches to the rest of the world but does not completely believe in itself.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Netanyahu's 'Shame' And The Fiction He Weaves

Fri, 9 Oct 2009 02:23:07 +0000

The image of Israel is changing. As much as the establishment and western countries defend Israel and accuse the Islamic countries, people are waking up to the truth - that Israel is an aggressive war mongering country. The internet has helped very much in overcoming the pro-Israel propagandistic newspapers in the west (USA, Canada and Europe).

Patrick J. Buchanan : GOP Senators: US, Not Israel, Should Attack Iran ‘If Necessary’

Tue, 6 Oct 2009 00:24:37 +0000

I would like to see protests against this kind of talk. I have a few ideas on what I what like to see done to those senators, but I'm not sure if its legal for me to say what I'm thinking. I would like to see organized protests against US attacks on Muslim nations and US support for Israel. The two go hand in hand. Where are the college organizations and students that were so effective in protesting things in the past (Vietnam, civil rights, etc.)? There needs to be a movement to protest our complete support of Israel's policies and attacking other countries on their behalf. The UN condemned Israel for war crimes the other day and Obama dismissed the report as unfair. I think Obama's right hand man, Rahm Emanuel (former Israeli soldier and son of an Israeli terrorist) is having an affect on Obama's policy decisions and his pronouncements.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Bitter Fruits of Mideast Wars

Sat, 3 Oct 2009 15:25:23 +0000

There appears to be a large opposition to the leader Ahmadinejad, but most of what the press reports is very misleading or sometimes an outright lie. Ahmadinejad also has a many supporters. With the hate campaign going on against Iran, keep in mind Iran is one of the most democratic countries in the middle east. Its one of the few countries that has elections, even if they're imperfect. Remember the 2000 election in the USA. A lot of people protested that Bush did not win that too. The USA and Great Britain over through the Iranian democracy in 1953. I believe Iran's form of government shows it wants to be a democracy and will move closer to being a less faulted one as time goes on. Contrary to the neo-con strategy, if the USA wants Iran to be more democratic it should stop threatening them. When a country feels threatened the government will usually become more authoritarian. But anybody whose following this thing knows it that the whole hullabaloo is about Israel. Their supporters want the USA to attack Iran (a new poll says 53% of American Jews think the USA should attack Iran) and once again their people surrounding the President are shaping the USA's strategy. Do you remember just a few weeks ago that Obama was criticizing Israel for its settlements on occupied territories. He wanted them to commit to stop building there and Netanyahu said no. Now all of a sudden that discussion no longer appears in the press. Instead of ratcheting up the pressure (perhaps seeking to cut aid to Israel), Obama is now threatening Israel's enemy. Israel's intransigence gets rewarded. Its easier to go along with what they want.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Bitter Fruits of Mideast Wars

Sat, 3 Oct 2009 01:52:12 +0000

I don't remember if I read it on this site, but Zbignew Brezinski said we should attack Israel if Israel attacks Iran. I hope that kind of thinking spreads. I don't want Israel or anyone else to be attacked, but as soon as the USA stops behaving like a colony of Israel, we will have many fewer wars in the future. <div style="display:block;margin:6px 0 0"><a class="a2a_dd" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save"><img src="http://static.addtoany.com/buttons/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" border="0" alt="Share/Save/Bookmark" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; ">

Patrick J. Buchanan : Bitter Fruits of Mideast Wars

Sat, 3 Oct 2009 01:39:31 +0000

About half of my relatives live in Europe. I wish the EU would not oppose Iran and I haven't asked my relatives , but I doubt if they consider Iran a threat at all. Iran has stated repeatedly it does not want nuclear weapons and its program is for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Also, it is a member of the NPT (unlike Israel and India) and has not violated the provisions of that treaty (despite the propaganda the media has churning out lately). The main reason we are threatening Iran is because Israel is their enemy. Iran supports the Palestinians and Hezbollah. Hezbollah receive weapons from Iran so that Lebanon can defend itself when Israel attacks.

Patrick J. Buchanan : September Surprise - Iranian Nuke Facility Revelation: Countdown to War Begins

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:31:17 +0000

I agree with what you said Andrea_Nyx. Its so Israel has military superiority in the middle east. Right now Israel can murder 1,400 Palestinians and thousands of Lebanese without repercussions. If Iran had nuclear weapons that would also change. However, Iran states it is not developing nuclear weapons and it doesn't want them. It is completely within its rights under the IAEA treaty it signed to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear power and the USA has no proof it is trying to build weapons. Despite the fact Iran is a member of the IAEA treaty, the USA and other western nations passed a motion in the UN contravening the IAEA treaty which condemned Iran's nuclear research. Nuclear research is of course legal under the treaty otherwise how could a country pursue the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Meanwhile India and Israel, which are not members of the IAEA treaty, work on nuclear weapons in complete secrecy.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Israeli Vigilantes Target Young Arab-Jewish Couples

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:25:37 +0000

Racism is a terrible trait. I hope that someday Jews learn to live with other people and accept others for who they are. But isn't it ironic how these bigots call all the shots. The UN has just released the Goldstone Report which condemned Israel for war crimes in Gaza. But you wouldn't know it for any news media that reported on it. Because the report also contained a few lines criticizing Palestinian actions, the media reports that both sides were guilty. They are deliberately reporting the story inaccurately. Ninety nine percent of the report criticized Israel's murder of 1,400 Palestinians and one percent of the report criticized Palestinian actions. Twelve Israelis died. The western powers actions (and inaction) demonstrate their collaboration in these war crimes. Although Israel attacked and massacred 1,400 Palestinians , the western government's (USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc.) said nothing. Indeed they supported it. These governments have participated in a blockade of goods sent into Gaza. The Palestinians are barely surviving. Iran is the only country that openly supports the Palestinians. They also support Hezbollah. Hezbollah was founded as a national liberation movement in Lebanon in 1982 to throw the Israeli invaders out after they murdered thousands including overseeing the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila camps. The Iranian President Ahmadinejad also makes statements questioning the holocaust (or certain aspects of it). He, like every other leader in the UN is fully aware that the holocaust is used as justification by the Israelis for starting wars, murdering Arabs and threatening the entire middle east and parts of Africa. The sympathy Jews have accrued after forty years of endless discussion of the holocaust gives Israel carte blanche to do almost anything. Jews are fully aware of this and that is why the discussion never ends. The holocaust is why the world is completely silent when Israelis are massacring 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza. But because Iran's president questions the holocaust and supports the people the Israelis are murdering, the USA and the other western lackey's have pumped up the rhetoric in the press so it sounds like the USA or Israel are justified in attacking Iran and will do so soon. You wouldn't know it from the press (100% pro Israel), but Iran is completely within its rights under the IAEA treaty it signed. It does not have to report a nuclear facility immediately or in fact for years. Iran reported this facility in fact earlier than it was required to. But Obama appears to want to attack anyway. Iran is a signatory of the treaty and has abided by its rules, while Israel has not signed the treaty, has an estimated 150 nuclear missiles and everything it does is in complete secrecy. No outsider has ever seen their facilities. But the inspectors have been inspecting Iran's facilities for years despite American harassment of Iran. Regarding Ahmadinejad's statements about the holocaust, whatever happened to freedom of speech, or is that only good for American's and British. That would help explain why America overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and installed a dictator - The Shah.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Black Sea Wars

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:59:53 +0000

The way NATO has behaved until recently has made it a threat to international peace rather than a guarantor of peace. When the Soviet Union collapsed and eastern Europe became free of Soviet control, Jim Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand into former Warsaw Pact territory. Since then former Warsaw Pact members Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia have all become NATO members. When NATO was created it was done so to defend itself against the Soviet Union and these former Warsaw Pact members. Since absorbing the former Warsaw Pact members into NATO the USA has ignored the concerns and interests of western Europe and become buddy buddy with eastern Europe because these countries have some fear of Russia and playing up those concerns works well for American neo-cons who want to expand American power in Europe (and elsewhere in the world). If you take the missile defense shield to be placed in the Czech Republic and Poland for instance, it did nothing but create acrimony and concern. The shield was to protect Europe from Iranian nuclear bombs that don't exist and Iran says it has no desire to develop. Iran doesn't have a missile that can reach Europe either. In addition, why would Iran want to attack an entire continent where NATO would come to Europe's defense automatically and Iran would be bombed into oblivion? The reason given for the creation of the missile defense system was false. It was not to defend against a non-existent Iranian threat but to expand American power in Europe and the system was to be used against Russia. When the discussion started about dropping the shield, its true intentions became clear. While the USA was assuring Russia the missile shield was not directed at them, now that its off the table the press is reporting how the Czech Republic and Poland have some concerns the USA is abandoning them and they feel vulnerable to Russian power. But I thought the missile shield wasn't directed against Russia? I'm not sure how concerned the Poles and Czechs actually are. A majority of Czechs polled at one time opposed placing the missile defense shield in their country and a large percentage of Poles opposed the shield too. When the USA announced it would build the missile defense shield, Russia announced soon afterwards it would place missiles in its Kaliningrad region (formerly East Prussia) that borders Poland. While all this is going on, talk about Czechs, Poles and Americans cooperating on this no one bothered to ask the rest of western Europe what they thought. Former German Chancellor Schroder and some others made their feelings known - they said "we have to stop this" thing from being built. While the Polish part of the shield was to be placed on land that was formerly German, the Czech component of the shield was to be placed on land formerly Austrian and the Russian missiles would be placed on land that was formerly East Prussia (Germany), Germany and Austria were not consulted about building a defense shield that now meant Russian missiles would be pointed not only at Poland and the Czech Republic, but Germany and the rest of Europe too. If a war developed between Russia and Poland or the Czech Republic, all of Europe becomes automatically involved in the war because its part of NATO and under the treaty obligated to defend fellow members under attack. Also of note, Poland's President or Prime Minister Kaczyński (these are twins that held the positions at the same time) said that the missile defense system could be used against Germany. I forgot which one of these twins said this, but this comment could be added to his other verbal attacks on Germany. The problem in NATO today is the USA and a large part of Europe don't agree on its purpose. Germany is on pretty good terms with Russia and German industry has strongly expanded in eastern Europe and to some degree in Russia. German business development in Russia is going to expand in the future and this will benefit Russia which needs a lot of work. The infrastructure is poor in much of the country and this will be improved as well as western technology being brought there. While the USA continues to uphold the Jackson-Vanik amendment from the 1970's prohibiting exporting high tech to Russia, Germans want to develop even closer relations with its former enemy and export its know how there. France feels similar (to a slightly lesser degree) and I think many eastern Europeans think similarly about developing closer relations with Russia.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Operation Northwoods and the 9/11 Truthers

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:10:11 +0000

Personally, I think the reason Mr. Krauthammer reacted the way he did is because some "truthers" have connected Israel and Jews with the attacks on the the World Trade Center. Some people have said Israel knew about the attacks beforehand and some people have said jews were evacuated from the World Trade Center before the attack. Mr. Krauthammer is a jewish neo-con and anyone that gives support to those ideas is his enemy. If the "truthers" were implicating Iranians, Arabs or perhaps the hated Germans, he might be a Van Jones supporter. Mr. Krauthammer is a loyal American and supporter of the USA and any American citizen as long as they are supporters of Israel. However his loyalty is contingent upon the USA supporting Israel. If President Obama or any President announced the USA would end the billions of dollars of military and financial support sent to Israel annually, that President would now be Mr. Krauthammer's enemy and his articles would reflect that.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Hate America? Count Me Out!

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:08:52 +0000

The author says "That the supporters and disciples of Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Mao Tse-tung, and Adolf Hitler would hate America is understandable". These kind of stupid statements come from being self centered and having an over inflated ego. Everyone of those men had far more important things to think about than America. The enemies those countries had were more important and the threat more immediate so that America was not even an enemy for most. Karl Marx - He thought Germany or England should be the first to go communist Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky - Their enemies were internal to Russia and from other European countries. Trotsky was there when Russia surrendered to Germany at Brest-Litovsk in 1917 ending WW I on the eastern front. America had nothing to do with it. Joseph Stalin - Harry Truman called America's communist ally leader "Uncle Joe". Only when the "cold war" began at the end of Stalin's life could America be considered an enemy. Even then, the communists were very grateful to America for their help in defeating the hated Germans. In those days it was widely believed Germany and Russia would soon fight again. Mao Tse Tung- At least American troops fought Chinese troops in Korea, Maybe thats why Chuck Baldwin thinks Mao hated America. Hitler - He had far more threatening allies than America. Poland and Russia were Germany's enemies. As Buchanan wrote in his book, Hitler did not want to fight Great Britain or the USA. When Hitler finally declared war on the USA in 1941, the USA had already been shipping arms to Great Britain for months (or years - whenever lend-lease began). This meant those ships were legal targets of U Boats under the rules of war. It was clear the USA would soon enter the war against Germany just as it had done in WW I.

Patrick J. Buchanan : Is America Coming Apart?

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:16:23 +0000

I agree that there is too much disunity. As far as I can tell, the only time the US is united is when we go to war (and then sometimes that unity fades). When it comes to passing a bill in congress to create a better health care system or anything else, nothing ever seems to get done. As far as I can tell the congress is deadlocked on almost everything and hasn't passed anything important for about 30 years.

Patrick J. Buchanan : 9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 02:04:30 +0000

I disagree also. I don't think being inquisitive, voicing skepticism or calling for further research and investigation means someone is a conspiracy theorist. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist (or in this case truther) is how you marginalize and render someone a nut-case, while some other things that sound crazy are widely accepted because the media tells us its an indisputable fact. If someone told you that a people were going to start a war because these people in that country wanted to exterminate another people, make them disappear from the planet and make that race extinct because for 500 years the drive to kill off this other people was drilled into their heads, wouldn't you think this person sounded like a conspiracy theorist nut? If these people further asserted that the race to be exterminated were rounded up throughout an entire continent and then gassed to kill them off and then their skin was used to make soap and lampshades, wouldn't you think this person is insane? The reason you might say no is because you have been told repeatedly this is the absolute truth and indeed the people who question this assertion (or just certain aspects of it) are the conspiracy theorists and nut-cases. On the more liberal radio stations they call people who question President Obama's birth certificate birthers, conspiracy theorists, nuts. I think thats ridiculous. If he hasn't presented his birth certificate, I wish he would. I'm an Obama supporter, I like him and voted for him, I'm glad he's president, but there appears to be a valid reason why some people question his citizenship. I wish he would put these questions to rest.