T Nation

Onward ? Into Waziristan!


by Pat Buchanan

An article illustrating how the left is as clueless as the neocon right when it comes to combatting terrorism.



Good luck to any troop, whether American or Pakistani in Waziristan. That is no man's land.


The solution is to bomb 'em all. You don't go hunting cockroaches one at a time --- you fucking bug bomb 'em.

Iran should be a prarie by now, where we let a few buffalo roam. Damnned Jimmy Carter...


You might want to see if there are some volunteer opportunities in the Tamerlane '08 campaign.


LOL! Now THAT was quality!!

Actually, Genghis Khan would put together a better campaign.


Yup, although I think he's already got a few options for running mate, you might have to start with distributing literature or holding fundraisers Headhunter.

Gotta love when someone's comparing people to cockroaches, really warms the heart.


Yes, bomb them all, take no prisoners, don't play the nation-building/policing game. I know what you're saying.

But...what happens if you miss a few?

You've heard that medical analogy about antibiotics and how they kill off 99.9% of known bacteria, but the .01% that surives goes on to produce a stronger generation of microphobes?

Well, I think that's very applicable to this scenario.

You have to realize that in today's PC world, we're not going to get another Patton or MacArthur in the military. We're not going to be flattening the Middle East anytime soon. Everything would be televised. The media would have a field day. The public wouldn't stand for it.

So the only military option available to us is this ridiculous nation building crap that tries to make police officers out of soldiers.

It won't work. It can't.

That's why we're better off cutting our loses now and not getting entangled in this mess.

Ron Paul is the strongest candidate on national security. He would pull the U.S. out of all the conflicts in which we can't win (Iraq, Serbia, etc), and in the case of a real, identifiable threat to the U.S., he would use precisely the kinds of tactics which you describe for dealing with our enemies.

Remember, in the debate, he said, "Declare war if it's necessary, go to war and win it, but don't get involved in the rest of this nonsense" (loosely paraphrased). He made the point that since WWII, we've neither declared nor truly won a war. That's not the way to go about it.

I think a lot of people underestimate the "teeth" in Ron Paul's defense policy. I hope he will rectify this in future debates. He is no dove. He simply wants a strong national defense instead of a hamstrung national offense.

Granted, the latter has been shown to work, historically, but only if you are willing to use the methods of Genghis Khan or Attila. We shouldn't kid ourselves. It will take another major attack on American soil before those methods are once again endorsed by a majority of the public.

We might be able to avoid such an attack through the combination of securing our borders and no longer fanning the flames of hatred in the ME.


Goes hand in hand perfectly with the "I see God everywhere and I'm so in touch with the Great Spirit and it's all fluffy kittens and warm fuzzies" charade...


Gotta love it when people are so ignorant and fearful of another's belief in God, that they think it can be used as a club.

I don't understand the fear. Why does in enrage you so whne someone says they see the handiwork of a superior being?

Oh - it must be that you think those who profess such a belief must also cut their nuts off, and sing kumbaya.

It kills any logical discussion you might fashion yourself as having when your best line is to make fun of ones faith.

But look who i am talking to.


The problem with winning a war and then 'not getting involved' would have left Goering in charge in Germany. Who would run Japan today?

I say: shock and awe like a MOTHERFUCKER!! These cretins leave you alone if they know they'll be absolutely hammered if they so much as fucking blink in our direction. Trying to be PC for all the soccer moms and libs just gets people dead, usually a soldier or Marine. Of course, libs don't really give a rat's ass about that, unless they can use it to get elected.


I have no problem whatsoever with the belief issues and am always ready to diiscuss and learn from anyone.
The issue I find difficult to reconcile is the way on one hand,one can be that vocally spiritual(for lack of a better word)and at the same time have the complete disdain for human life displayed in that particular post.
I'm completely open to hearing a case for how the two viewpoints can be married in one cohesive world view.

While I do understand this is just a web forum and that kind of statement of mass violence is the order of the day,I still find it disturbing,even more so when coupled with the profession of faith (which I do not doubt is genuine and heartfelt and have no issue with).

So if you feel like taking the time to explain it to me,I'm all eyes.

And also feel free to explain to me who you are talking to,so I can at least tell you if you're accurate in your assumption.


I was referring to GDollars. Your post segued unto his, so I used both. Sorry for not clarifying.

There is really not that much of a stretch to think that those of faith will fight to the death to protect their home, and root out evil.

I believe in God - but fuck with my wife or my children, and see how quickly your life will become a living hell. I think the term is called extreme prejudice.

How much of a stretch is it really to extend that same feeling to one's country?

Is it your belief that you cannot possess both a love of God, and at the same exterminate an enemy? Especially one that has sworn to exterminate you?

My opinion of the war is that it sucks. Not because of the current popular belief that we are bullies, but because we have not fought this war to win. I have been critical from the outset that we should be far more aggressive, and far less concerned with feelings and opinions.

I have no problem reconciling a fight to win attitude with a deep respect and love for a superior being.


Damn straight !


There's a world of difference between being a Christian and believing in fighting to protect yourself and loved ones (which are totally compatible) and labeling your enemies (or even just those in their general area) "cockroaches."

As for the stupid right-wing "we aren't fighting to win because we're afraid of hurting feelings" BS, read one or two books about small wars.



Honestly, this isn't WWII, for a whole host of reasons. I would've thought most Americans would realize that after Vietnam.


Trust me, you're not the only one. But when you as much as scratch the surface, you immediately realize how easily people transit from one to the other. The crusaders, the Talibans, and myriad of others have been doing it for centuries.

The ease with which extreme disdain for human life is rationalized in those circles is extraordinary. Go ask Ben Laden.


I started to read Howard Blooms Lucifer Principle anew yesterday. While I don't wholeheartedly agree with him, it is thoughtprovoking and entertaining reading.

Anyhow, according to him, one of the basic premises of the human condition and of life in general, is the dicotomy between us and them. Another premise is the need to form groups. If I had to evaluate the truth of this on the basis of the posts on this forum, I'd say he is 100% right.


I'll accept judgment from a power higher than you. If I am wrong - then I will face my due. But you sitting in judgment is a joke.

I'd like to know where a godless asshole such as yourself finds the power to sit in judgment of anyone.

But I digress... WWII was the last time anyone entered a war to win. I think a visit to those times, and those goals are exactly what we need.

Maybe you are of the kiss ass clan. I am not. Destroying the enemy is not a bad thing, regardless of what you might say. I say it would save lives, and end the fighting mch sooner than your plan of apeasement, or Bush's plan to wage a friendly war.

We destroyed Europe. We should destroy the ME just as purposefully.

Why do you have a problem with that? Are you affraid of winning? You must be to be such a pussy-filled apologist.

I'm pretty sure that, all things held equal, you will be judged far more harshly for the size of your vagina, than I will for my desire to destroy an enemy.

IF you have a problem with that - please offer an intelligent response. Your straw man festival may have been popular recently - but I refuse to buy a ticket.


Nice load of insults and false dichotomies.


Rain, I'm not sure GDollars37 was apologising for terrorists, he just suggested an alternative way to fight terrorism.

Well, how's this for one: The terrorists fire a rocket into Israel. Instead of an armed invasion with tanks and troops, Israel responds by firing a rocket into Gaza, if it hits a crowded street, so be it. If terrorists blow up a bus, a bomb goes off the next day in a Palestinian market.

Terrorists hijack a plane or blow up an embassy....Instead of using fighters, tanks and troops to respond, how about 5 passenger planes from ME countries and Pakistan mysteriously blow up in flight, how about ME embassies in the US and around the world suddenly burn to the ground? No one takes responcibility. The US denies all involvement.

How's that for a way to fight terrorism?


I don't know why anyone honestly takes anything they say to heart. They're all trying to get elected, and will say whatever they have to to get there. That's both parties, both sides.

Fighting Islamic terrorism is going to require a lot more than 150,000 troops in one country. I wish people, or politicians, maybe, would understand that there is no one clear way to defend against this. If we fight them over there, there will still be attacks- troops don't solve the damn problem. We cannot give up all of our personal freedoms on such a threat either, because then the greatest threat will come from our own government.

These are dangerous times, and there isn't one politician on either side man enough to step up and fix it (yes, MAN, fuck you Hillary).