Rating: 
Summary: Buchanan, Chomsky and David Horowitz
Review: One need not agree with everything Mr. Buchanan stands for (we do not) to appreciate his trenchant analysis of Mr. Bush's extremely dangerous foreign policy, which in certain significant respects converges with the analysis of Noam Chomsky. It is a testimony to the horrors of the quagmire that people who traditionally align with the political left and the political right agree on so much relative to the current geopolitical scene. They have eyes which see. I've been reading David Hororwitz's The Anti-Chomsky Reader, and, in the last analysis, it seems to me, he fails to make the case that much of Chomsky's reading of the geopolitical trends of the past 50 years is not convincing (especially now, in light of Mr. Bush's deadly imperial dreams) whether Chomsky always gets the footnotes right or not (the book's obsession). That's why Buchanan and Chomsky (and Gore Vidal for that matter) ironically converge in certain major respects: because their analysis is based on firsthand observation of the Powers and what the Powers do (more than what they say). It is their own analysis which is convincing in so many areas, even if, of course, they differ in other respects, or allow their graduate students to get sloppy with sources. One hardly needs academia's support when one has the major newspapers of the world screaming out what's happening and where day by day. But both Chomsky and Buchanan have enough support even there.
I do not swallow either man's anaylsis whole. Critical thinking will very seldom do that. No one gets it right all of the time, in every instance. But I respect them both. Because they see the big picture and, having seen it, are trying to avert the future consequences of a doomed and dangerous foreign policy.
Yes, Buchanan leaves me cold when he talks about Reagan's trickle-down economics, immigration matters, nuclear power, and Chomsky leaves me cold when he uncritically speaks of the "advances" of radical feminism (as opposed to rational feminism) or when he bends over backwards to give the communist devils their due (even if he unambiguously condemns Stalin, Pol Pot and their ilk, whatever his right-wing critics say).
When the left and the right agree in very critical areas, you can bet the farm you're on to the facts of the matter. And it's been happening since 9/11 more and more because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's been happening. It is time, as Buchanan and Chomsky say, to stop the occupations and exploitation, the unholy quest for "Benevolent global hegemony" (Buchanan) and seek to redress the root causes of terrorism, what Buchanan calls "the last weapon of the weak". His chilling prophesy tells us what may happen if we do not and continue the present dangerous course.
Stephen Hand
TCRNews.com
Rating: 
Summary: A History of American Foreign Policy
Review: "A Republic, Not an Empire" is a History of American Foriegn Policy dating back to the founding fathers up until the 1st US-Iraq war. Buchanan's thesis of the book is that the United States should not get involved in Military interests that do not threaten the American nation. On the contrary, he suggests that America's participation in treaties, protection pacts and other reciprocal actions lure America into military and political intervention that ultimately undermines American Soveirnty and dilutes goodwill among other Nations. Unfortunately Buchanan's critics interpret his work as anti-semetic for criticism of US Isreali policy rather than seeing the patriot Buchanan who supports "America First," fighting the encrouchment of a new global order than seeks to gain from America's loss. Packed full of hisotircal references and quotes, this work is a valuable review of American Foreign policies and the mindset of our founding fathers.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant history, debatable conclusions
Review: Although written in those halcyon pre-9/11 days, any conservative who questions the wisdom of our Iraq policy should read "A Republic, Not an Empire". Is "World War IV", so defined by Buchanan nemesis Norman Podhoretz and others, truly a necessary war that will destroy America if we do not fight it? Or is it, like Woodrow Wilson's Great War, an avoidable catastrophe, having nothing to do with core American interests, that will only produce new and as-yet unforseen disasters and threats (as Versailles set the table for Hitler and Yalta for the near world domination of Soviet communism)? Reluctantly, with about 60% of my conviction, I agree with the Bush Doctrine, but I must admit that the other 40% of me agrees with Buchanan.
This book, although not written explicitly about Iraq or terrorism, is full of insights into our current situation. It is strongest as a history book, with chapters devoted to interpreting events in our history that left me shaking my head in wonder at my own ignorance and at the tainted orthodoxy of our conventional wisdom, passed dutifully on to new generations in our schools. But it is also a clarion call to restraint in international affairs, and a sharp focus on national interest. Buchanan very effectively conveys the utter impossibility of all American's promises and military commitments around the world today. But further, he believes that America's position as a special and precious civilization can only be preserved by deliberately keeping our distance from the insanities that periodically infect the rest of the world. It is an appealing vision, with deep roots going all the way back to George Washington. In the case of the War on Terror, restraint may be the wrong ticket, but this is none the less a critically important book, and a truly exciting read. And it is a shame that the patriotic and sensible voice of Pat Buchanan has been silenced within the Republican party.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Treatise on where America has been
Review: And also where it is going. Buchanan's style of presenting the history of America is both informative and enjoyable. He uses the incidents of the past to foreshadow similar conflicts of the present and poses ideas that we might solve problems much as we have before. In reading this book, I've found that Buchanan isn't the crackpot isolationist that pundits and comics have made him out to be, but rather someone who had rational solutions to real problems, and I found it beneficial to understand where he is coming from with his ideas.
Rating:
Summary: True GOP values
Review: Buchanan has written a masterpiece with this book. Seeing what the current "GOP" has become, books like this shed some light on how "republicans" have lost their way.
Favoring imperialism/militarism, occupation and LARGE governments is NOT what the Republican party is about. I hope that more Americans read this book to once again recapture what our Founding Fathers wanted for this Great Nation.
Rating:
Summary: He is so accurate
Review: I recently read this book, even though it has been out for a couple of years. This author immediately attains credibility as he was dead on in his assessment of the war on Iraq, predicting who would give us trouble (especially Turkey). This book is a valuable history lesson, reminding the reader about the foundation of foreign policy espoused by Washington after the Revolution, and how it has slowly unwound over our country's history.It is unfortunate that our present policy makers don't subscribe to the tenants our Founding Fathers preached and lived by; I believe it would save our country if they did. With our wide-open borders and continuous meddeling in the affairs of other countries, it may take another attack (like the WTC) to bring them back to reality. But then again, the attacks on 9/11 should have been enough. Please read this book, and teach your kids the valuable lessons you will learn from it.
Rating:
Summary: "Pat Buchanan's rhetoric has true grit"- William Buckley Jr.
Review: It's good to hear from a true Conservative nowadays. Pat Buchanan is perhaps one of the last hopes for Conservatives in America and this book tells it like it is. Pat was about as Historically accurate as possible and he takes stabs at everyone. I think it's important for Conservatives to follow in this great man's footsteps and leave the Republican Party to rot. In hear is the prediction of the Second Gulf War and the War On Terror with Osama Bin Laden leaving the world full of fear. And it was written in 1999. All in all I think Pat Buchanan get's a bad rap; he is often called a racist and a Fascist, it's unfair and couldn't be any further from the truth. Pat Buchanan is a great man, a man of integrity and a man of honesty.
Rating:
Summary: A Freedom Lover, Not a Hitler Lover
Review: John McCain never read this book. That is clear to anyone who does read it. Mr. Buchannan recaps the history of US foreign relations; his analysis of the events leading up our entry into World War II is scholarly, fair, and plausible. He has not a good word fot Hitler; his thesis is that Hitler was no threat to us, and that we do not need to bail out the rest of the world whenever evil rears its' ugly head. (It is arguable that what replaced Hitler in eastern Europe was worse than Nazism, based on the body count on Communism's ledger in the years since Lenin.) Most Americans are probably non-interventionists at heart; the sharp decline in armed forces recruiting may be traceable to a sense that the missions in the post-Cold War era have no clear connection to defending America. (As a veteran, I was/am willing to risk battle for my country, but have no inclination to kill Serbs on behalf of Albanians, or vice versa.) One may disagree with him (as I do on trade), but this is a reasonable book, and nothing written in it makes him a friend of facism. Give Mr. Buchannan his due, and read it for yourself - you'll be a step ahead of his critics. -Lloyd A. Conway
Rating:
Summary: A SOLID UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY
Review: Pat Buchanan has written an excellent book. He has a solid understanding of U.S. history, and of the origins of the First and Second World Wars. Even his liberal critics can't seem to find fault with the facts he has presented! Pat is correct in that the U.S. obviously had no vital interest in the outcome of World War I, and had no real reason in becoming militarily involved. The sinking of the British munitions carrying liner "Lusitania" in 1915 (listed in the 1914 edition of "Janes Fighting Ships" as a Royal Navy auxiliary cruiser) certainly helped facilitate the U.S. declaration of war in 1917. The British role in this is well documented in "The Lusitania" by Colin Simpson. Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of the sinking. World War II in Europe started on September 3, 1939 with the British and French declaration of war on Germany. Adolf Hitler had attacked Poland on Sepember 1. However, Britain and France did nothing to help Poland. They were simply playing the old European "balance of power" game with their declaration of war. Poland, which had taken German, Ukrainian, and Russian territory after World War I, was ruled by a military dictator with an astonishingly inflated opinion of Polish military power. The German, Ukrainian, and Russian minorities in Poland were certainly not eager to serve in the Polish army. The communist dictator Stalin also attacked Poland in September 1939, followed quickly by attacks on Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Rumania, and Finland. There was no British and French declaration of war on the USSR! See "The Origins of the Second World War" by A.J.P. Taylor. Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of Britain in 1940. His overriding foreign policy aim was to get the U.S. involved in the war. He knew that, without U.S. involvement, Britain would eventually have to accept a compromise peace with Germany and Italy (and he would spend his retirement in Canada?). Churchill ordered the start of British air raids on Berlin on August 25, 1940. After three RAF raids on Berlin, Hitler ordered the start of Luftwaffe raids on London on September 7, 1940. Churchill actually hoped that German attacks on London would gain him sympathy in the U.S.! See "Churchill's War" by David Irving. Eric Nave and James Russbridger in "Betrayal at Pearl Harbor" have convincing documented the fact that the British had broken JN-25, the Japanese naval code, and that Churchill knew about the planned Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor prior to December 7, 1941! Germany, Italy, and their European allies (Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, plus friendly neutrals like Spain and Petainist France) were never a threat to the U.S. in World War II. Of course, all of these countries (except Bulgaria) sent troops to the Eastern Front against Stalin. Japan was a threat to our colonial posessions in the Pacific only because of Franklin Roosevelt's policy of cutting Japan off from all of their sources of oil. Hitler's 6 million victims were far outnumbered by FDR's communist "ally" Stalin's 25 million victims, and by Mao's 60 million victims. These are statistics that the liberals do not like to talk about! While the U.S. was liberating France in 1944, FDR's communist "ally" Stalin was busy enslaving Eastern Europe. See "The Black Book of Communism" by Stephane Courtois and others. Of course, neither Britain, France nor the U.S. did anything in 1945 to free Poland, the Baltic States, or any other country from Stalin's occupation. So, what was the point Britain's declaration of war in 1939?
Rating:
Summary: A patriot's warning for America
Review: There was a time when the name of Patrick J. Buchanan struck terror in the hearts of those on the left, but even the political right for which he was a prominent spokesman have looked askance on his activities ever since his ill-fated run for the White House against George H.W. Bush in 1992. Several years later, he further alienated his party and earned the admiration of true independents by joining forces with Ralph Nader to warn the nation of the danger that NAFTA represented for America's workers.
Buchanan is now, in a sense, a man without a party as he sees both Democrats and Republicans sacrificing American sovereignty as they join the movement toward globalization.
In "A Republic, Not An Empire," Buchanan sounds like a man who could comfortably share a drink with Gore Vidal, technically a leftist, but officially another small "r" republican who sees the U.S.A. in danger of becoming an empire, fighting wars and invading countries for the benefit of a "New World Order" rather than the preservation of our own self-interests. Buchanan doesn't merely sound off, but provides detailed history lessons that demonstrate the unwieldy and dangerous path America is following, and continues to follow no matter what party is leading the nation.
This is neither a "liberal" nor a "conservative" book. It's the work of a true patriot, and recommended reading for those on both sides of the political fence.
Brian W. Fairbanks
|
