Pat Buchanan- Why are we still in Korea?
 

Interesting coming from a Conservative.

Thought it might interest you guys on here.

I think he has a good point.

Why Are We Still in Korea? - Pat Buchanan - Townhall Conservative

again sorta not
 

Unfortunately Pat Buchanan has been the consumate Washington insider..holding jobs between the media and the federal government since 1962 he constantly rails against?
He does not even 'talk the talk' let alone 'walk the walk'.
Pat Buchanan is not a conservative in US politcs.

Pat Buchanan the 'politician' a few highlights:
Larry Pratt, co-chairman of Buchanan's campaign, is a major figure in the militia movement, and has appeared at workshops and on TV shows sponsored by white supremacist "Christian Identity" groups.

Michael Farris, the third of the 4 co-chairmen, attended the "White Rose Banquet" honoring those who had gone to jail for acts of violence in the anti-abortion crusade -- including Paul Hill, who shot a doctor and his bodyguard in Pensacola, Florida. The banquet was held in Arlington, VA on January 21, 1996.

Pat Buchanan the 'government intern' political aide

Involvement in Watergate
Pat Buchanan's involvement in the Nixon Administration and its scandals. Pat joined Nixon's staff as a young (25 year old), bright and extreme partisan. He was part of Nixon's absolute inner circle -- the first full-time staffer hired when Nixon began his comeback in 1966
For example, unethical and even illegal dirty tricks against campaign opponents, his admitted attempts to cover up Watergate by urging Nixon to burn the infamous White House tapes, and worst of all, his role in using the IRS against political enemies.
Nixon's "Dirty Tricks" against Political Opponents

Buchanan was not just another aide when it came to dirty tricks -- he was one of the leaders in pushing them. According to John Dean, one of Nixon's top aides, Buchanan relentlessly pushed underhanded methods, talking H.R. Haldeman's assistant Gordon Strachan into it, and even popularized the very phrase "political hardball." His view was that opponents would probably nail you, so you should hit them first, harder.

Regardless of who he is.

I think he made a good point.

Most of the discussion surrounding the bases in Korea and Japan in this forum have been centred around the needs and wishes of Japan and Korea.

What's in it for the US?

I think we've assumed that the US gets a military and political sphere of influence over the pacific and Asia out of it. But as the article mentions... it's a very "cold war" strategy. Perhaps he's right in that such a strategy is no longer fruitful.

US is good at business!!!

First of all, we aren't at war in Asia, so let's not talk like we are.

S. Korea is America's ally, so we will stand beside them. Is that not what allies do?

You can say it doesn't matter who Pat Buchanan is, but this is politics. If this issue had come up 5 years ago, he would be singing a very different tune.

Being their ally is one thing.

Maintaining sizeable military forces in their defence is another.

Furthermore... who is talking like the US is at war in Asia? I'm not a fan of rhetoric MMM and I like to think you know me better than that. If there is anything about my posts that you believe is innacurate then please state it specifically.

Lol... there's a sea of politics to be taken into consideration with this statement (and I'm feeling lazy)... but, I, as a naive, limitedly informed civilian think the U.S. is quite simply... scared. Add corruption into the already fragile mix of conflicting philosphical values, and you have the complicated world that is ours.

I have no doubt there are noble people in the government, but they are few and spread thin within the vast crowd of wolves. I couldn't say I could recognize one. It would be difficult to know for sure... but I'm comforted by the probability favoring the existence of such people -- or maybe that's all it is; a comforting logic. Nevertheless, such hope couldn't exclusively be my own. I'm sure others might think the same. And, if so, paradoxal law may grant such hope validity. But I digress...

Whether the original purpose for America's presence throughout the world be noble or not, it is as it is -- with little chance of making a dramatic change without realization of war. It is this hope, this standard, this collective intention or encouragement for righteousness that keeps world leaders in check. Because, naturally, despite the enormous influence a person of high political stature can wield, they will always be at the mercy of the public. Citizens may be used as a means; tools; but as human beings, such tools are equipped with a conscience.

My point is, regardless of the initial, ill-nature of a cause, the purpose can always be swayed by the common judgement of the general population. What many force themselves to believe can be true. In this case, the possibility of our involvement in this conflict may ultimately be sinister or reckless, but what we decide the purpose to be can, to a degree, fulfill a more honorable cause... like aiding people in danger.

I don't think you get the point Jaydalert

It's not about whether it's noble or not.

It's about whether it is even a smart thing to do.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say?

It's not about you and me Ronin. And you are a fan of rhetoric, but I am not going to get sucked into this one.

You're lame.

Get sucked into what?

You don't want to contribute to the discussion then fine.

I was just asking you to explain your comments but instead you took it as an oppurtunity to get a shot in so I don't know where this "making it about you or me" came from.

Generally

People over 25 in South Korea: America is our ally.

People under 25 in South Korea: America is NOT our ally.

again sorta not
 

Unfortunately in the op's Pat Buchanan 'BFF' town hall speech - good ole Pat leaves out his participation in US administrations interventions in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

From Buchanans post in the Nixon white house Pat Buchanan painted a rosy picture of the Nixon, strategy to 'end the Vietnam War with a peace with honor ',...

In retrospect Pat Buchanan as a member of the Nixon inner circle was witness to the prolonged extension of the war with no change to what the US would finally acheive if it had settled years earlier at the Paris Peace Talks for what it finally recieved. So much for peace or honor.

The Vietnam War with the Nixon adminstration at the helm with Pat Buchanan right there at the center cheerleading. Grinded on without a 'hic up' from Pat Buchanan.

Fast forward to Pat Buchanan serving with US Pres. Ronald Reagan. Pat Buchanan served as White House Communications Director from 1985 to 1987. To help garner opposition to Nicaragua's Sandinista government and support of the opposing rebels he coined the phrase " I'm a contra too ".
Translation the contras were a bunch of murderous thieves and drug smugglers on the payroll of US covert operations to destabilize the duly democratically elected government of Nicaragua.
see Iran Contra Affair
From What Uncle Sam Really Wants, by Noam Chomsky.

How will this affect on the trust of the US allies?
S.Korea might need to stop to rely on the US.(?)

I've always had bad feeling when, nations with superpower claim themselves peacemakers, allies and supporters in wars which are not their to fight. There are always hidden reasons/wills behind their actions, I hope they'll give them up one day.
It's an altogether sad situation.

BBC News - Wikileaks release of embassy cables reveals US concerns
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/wo...s.html?_r=1&hp

again sorta not
 

way to go dude?
how will this effect my internet connection?
What has this to do with S. Korea, or Pat Buchanan ? besides bashing the US for civilian deaths in Iraq which clearly are identified besides WikiLeaks and other sources as attributed to mostly 'sectarian violence'.
translation iraqi's killing iraqi's
yes the US is responsible for loss of civilian life in Iraq but the
majority of the violence is due to 'ethnic cleansing' due to
sectarian violence. (Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish factions)

(Reuters)
Iraq civilian death toll almost doubles in July
By Wathiq Ibrahim
BAGHDAD | Sun Aug 1, 2010 12:09pm EDT
Overall violence has fallen sharply since the height of the sectarian war that followed the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. But bombings and assassinations still occur on a daily basis as Sunni Islamists try to reverse the rise of the Shi'ite majority to political dominance.

Isn't the US being in Asia just a matter of balancing power?

Regardless of whether or not it's the "smart" thing to do, it is what it is and if we were to just pick up and go then there would be a huge shift in how things work around here. Who'd plan all that? How much time and money would it cost? It jus seems like a lot of time and money to do something that might not have the best results.

I'm Glad China is reaching for Superpower status. Ths US doesn't have a rival since the USSR collapsed and is withering on the vine for lack of a challange. The US has allways built it's strength on compition, it's what drives us to greatness..without it we just kinda float along aimlessly.

The Korea's are again becomeing the focal point between competeing super powers. One on the Rise the other looking to find it's purpose again.

By the way, the Korean war was never technically over.

China is building the aircraft carrier of five seats.
Obama visits India. (Importance)

The defense power strengthening of South Korea fails by the economic crisis.
The thing with an extremely little number of Republic of Korean Force of possession bullets is exposed.
Problem of U.S. bases relocation in Japan.
Budget allocation to the U.S. military in the Diet in Japan discussed now.
Japan fails in the arms renewal.
China and an intimate political party are sustaining the government party to Taiwan.

& Military forces money of the US is insufficient.


Read the column and return it.
"Lower the front to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean central part if you do not obediently follow it."

Before I forget.. thanks fluffy for the insight into buchanan. Regardless of who he is.. I still think he makes some interesting points and coming from someone with a bit of status (regardless of what you think of him), that suggests to me that this idea is bouncing around somewhere in the top echelons of US political thought.

I think the point is that the Japanese and South Koreans would. And the question here isn't how much time or money it will cost, but rather WHO's time and money it will cost.

Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy.. It's not like it can't fill in the gap the US will leave open.

South Korea is not exactly a poor country either.

Furthermore it won't be like the US is abandoning them as allies.

agian sorta not
 

I never posted what 'I thought ' about Pat Buchanan?

I posted excerpts from sources from his 1966-2000' career in politics as reported by NYT,WSJ and authors Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn etc.

Pat Buchanan has been around the US political landscape for several decades
and his actions speak louder than anybodys words or thoughts including Pat Buchanan or myself.

Pat Buchanan omitted from his town hall speech - US policy that undercut his arguement about his 'fantasy' US policy and strategy.

A) omitted material 'Americas longest War' Vietnam War
Pat Buchanan was major 'cheerleader' and part of the deception
of the Nixon Administration.
B) omitted his participation in Pres. Reagans administration
support overthrow of democratically elected gov. Nicaraga
funding support of contras ( terrorist organization ).

all above have been extensively reported by journalist and media and part of the congressional record see; Iran Contra Scandal.

C) ..,"what is bouncing around somewhere in the top echelons of US political thought"
certainly not these Pat Buchanan ideas ( quotes )


"Promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide." - Pat Buchanan 10/17/90

"Women are simply not endowed with the same measure of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism." - Pat Buchanan

"We are in the process of destroying the one working economy [in lower Africa -- South Africa] -- because it doesn't adopt an idiotic 'One man, one vote' regimen." -- Pat Buchanan


"[Hitler was] an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier... [and] a political organizer of the first rank." - Pat Buchanan

It's amazing to me how America stays in SK and also in Okinawa, considering how much the local people hate them.
The truth of the situation is money, as it always is.

I think your assertion is a bit of a generalization.

Geez... Maybe I didn't make it clear enough... but I was trying to tell you that while it is interesting what you are telling me. I don't care.

All that matters to me is that he is a politician with considerable status and he is saying something that makes a little bit of sense.

In other words.. You can make this thread about Pat Buchanan if you like. You might find someone who'll talk to you about it. But I'm more interested in what he's saying.

It is money and time that becomes a problem when Japan and South Korea harden defense power.

again sorta wrong
 

Ronin4hire-
Pat Buchanan has not run for a political office since his 'stunning' political performance in the 2000' US presidential elections, your'e 'BFF' Pat Buchanan finished fourth with 449,895 votes, 0.4% of the popular vote running on the ticket of the 'The Reform Party'

Sorry to pop your'e bubble but Pat Buchanan is not a political force in the US? Unless you consider winning 0.4% a mandate Ronin4hire?

Pat Buchanan is a media pundit that promotes his magazine and his books and changes political partys like people change socks. Whatever benefits Pat
If you bothered to actually examine US politics you could not find one elected office or political race that dear old Pat Buchanan won?

Since his political career started in 1966' Pat Buchanan never been elected to any elective office in the US or planet earth ever.

Pat Buchanan is on the fringe of US politics just to the right of the 'crop circles' behind the aisle with the 'tin foil hats'.

Well according to you he was involved in previous administrations. He may not have much political force nowadays. But when he says stuff... people listen.

It just so happens that the stuff this guy is saying in this particular article resonates with me.

again sorta not
 

The last adminstration Pat Buchanan served - as a White House Communications Director from 1985 to 1987 was under Pres. Ronald Reagan.
Besides having happened over 2 decades ago and Pat Buchanan being right there in the center of 'Iran Contra Scandal' that almost toppled the Reagan administration and promoting the contras to overthrow a democratically elected Nicaraga government.
This particular period would not be something Pat Buchanan would put in his political resume.

Geez... I get it.... you don't like him.

By the sounds of it I wouldn't either.

Let me repeat myself

All things are about national interests. If it effects US intersts they will do something, if it doesn't, they may not.