The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
The Enemy of My Enemy
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The forces that do not want a U.S. nuclear deal with Iran, nor any U.S. detente with Iran, are impressive.

Among them are the Israelis and their powerful lobby AIPAC, the Saudis and their Sunni allies on the Persian Gulf, a near unanimity of Republicans and a plurality of Democrats in Congress.

Is there a case to be made for a truce in the venomous conflict that has gone on between us since the taking of U.S. hostages in 1979? Is there any common ground?

To both questions, President Obama and John Kerry believe the answer is yes. And they are not without an argument.

First, the alternative to a truce — breaking off of negotiations, doubling down on demands Iran dismantle all nuclear facilities, tougher sanctions — inevitably leads to war. And we all know it.

Yet Americans do not want another war in the Middle East, with a nation three times the size of Iraq, and its allies across the region.

Nor can Iran want such a war. Had the ayatollahs and mullahs wanted it, they could have had a war with the United States at any time in the third of a century since they seized power.

Yet as Ronald Reagan was taking the oath in 1981, our hostages were suddenly on their way home. With the accidental shoot-down of an Iranian Airbus by the cruiser Vincennes in 1988, the Ayatollah ended his war with Saddam Hussein, fearful the Americans were about to intervene on the side of Iraq.

Why Iran wants to avoid war is obvious. Given U.S. air, missile and naval power, and cyberwarfare capabilities, a war with the United States would do to Iran what we did to Iraq, smash it up, set it back decades, perhaps break up the country.

Some mullahs may be fanatics, but Iran is not run by fools.

Yet even if we have a mutual interest in avoiding a war, where is the common ground between us?

Let us begin with the Sunni terrorists of al-Qaida who brought down the twin towers, and the Islamic State that is beheading Christians, apostates, and nonbelievers, and intends to establish a Middle East caliphate where there are no Americans, no Christians, and no Shiites.

Americans and Iranians have a common goal of degrading and defeating them.

In the Syrian civil war, Iran and its Shiite allies in Hezbollah have prevented the fall of the Alawite regime of Bashar Assad. For years, Iran has helped to keep the al-Nusra Front and ISIL out of Damascus.

When the Islamic State seized Mosul and most of Anbar, the Iranians helped to rally Shiite resistance to defend Baghdad, and are now assisting the Iraqi army in its effort to recapture Tikrit.

Until this week, the U.S. stayed out, as Shiite militias were mauled by fewer than 1,000 jihadis. Wednesday, however, we intervened with air power, thus exposing Iraq’s reliance on us.

This does not contradict but rather reinforces the point. In the war to expel the Islamic State from Iraq, we and Iran are on the same side.

Does Iran wish to displace American influence in Baghdad?

Undeniably. But when we destroyed the Sunni Baathist regime of Saddam, disbanded his army and held elections, we greased the skids for a pro-Iranian Shiite regime. We can’t walk that cat back.

Consider Yemen.

This week, the Saudis sent their air force against the Houthi rebels who had seized the capital of Sanaa, driven out the president, and have now driven south to Aden to take over half of the country.

Why is the Saudi air force attacking the Houthis?


The Houthis belong to a sect close to the Shiite and are supported by Iran. Yet the Houthis, who bear no love for us, began this war to expel al-Qaida from Yemen. And their hatred for ISIS is surely greater than it is for us or Israel, as, last week, 137 of their co-religionists were massacred in two mosque bombings in Sanaa. ISIS claimed credit.

In summary, though the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Shiite militia in Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Alawite regime of Assad may not love us, they look on al-Qaida and ISIS as mortal enemies. And, thus far, they alone have seemed willing to send troops to defeat them.

Where are the Turkish, Saudi, Kuwaiti or Qatari troops?

During World War II, the U.S. Navy and Merchant Marine shipped tanks, guns and munitions to a Soviet Union that was doing most of the fighting and suffering most of the casualties in the war against Hitler.

No matter all the “Uncle Joe” drivel at Tehran and Yalta, we were never true friends or allies, and shared nothing in common with the monster Stalin, save Hitler’s defeat.

If President Nixon could toast Mao Zedong, can we not deal with Ayatollah Khamenei?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2015

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iran, ISIS 
Hide 26 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    “No matter all the ‘Uncle Joe’ drivel at Tehran and Yalta, we were never true friends or allies, and shared nothing in common with the monster Stalin, save Hitler’s defeat.”

    Not true. There were tons of pro-Soviet spies in the US government.
    And if Hitler was the only reason for the alliance, why did FDR hand over most of North Asia to Stalin?

    “If President Nixon could toast Mao Zedong, can we not deal with Ayatollah Khamenei?”

    Because China was not the enemy of Israel.

  2. Iran can go ahead and do all that good stuff without nukes or ICBMs.

    A “deal” with Iran would be great. Unfortunately, what Kerry is negotiating is a Western capitulation.

    The Hitler/Stalin lesser-of-two-evils analogy is a good one. Except that even by Pat’s logic Iran is playing (or wants to play) the role not of Stalin but of Hitler: strike at a fast-spreading revolutionary scourge (and replace it with another). Of course, if destroying the Jews happens to be a co-equal part of that campaign, well, for some of the readers here that’s not a bug but a feature.

  3. @International Jew

    Of course, if destroying the Jews happens to be a co-equal part of that campaign, well, for some of the readers here that’s not a bug but a feature.

    The bug in your argument, International Jew, which is also the feature of so so so so so so very much of international jewish detached-from-reality cant is that Iran seeks to destroy Jews.

    That is simply not the case.

    And since you choose to haul out for the three trillionth time the Hitler analogy, the facts and evidence demonstrate that Hitler and Nazis did not seek to destroy the Jews either.

    Jews never tire of telling the world how smart they are.

    So do this little exercise in comparative, critical thinking:

    How many German cities were destroyed in WWII?
    How many Jewish cities were destroyed in WWII?

    How many German buildings were destroyed in WWII?
    How many Jewish cities were destroyed in WWII?

    How much US govt. aid did “de-housed” German citizens receive during and in the immediate aftermath of WWII?
    How much US govt. aid did Jews receive during and in the immediate aftermath of WWII (and until today)?

    How many German POWs were left to starve after WWII?
    What was the status and shape of Jewish fighting forces after WWII?

    What’s the score, International Jew? Who got built up and who got destroyed, Jews or Germans?

    Now let’s talk about Israel-Iran relations.

    First off, Iran was neutral during WWII but was occupied, and Iranians were abused and mistreated by the occupying British and American forces. This was in a nation that was still suffering the after-effects of a famine during WWI (induced by British predatory practices on Iranian resources and territory) that killed as many as 10 million Iranians — see The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran: 1917-1919, by Mohammad Gholi Majd

    At the time, as many as 100,000 Jews lived in Iran.
    What assistance did Jews provide to IRANIANS during this period of their immiseration?

    After Israel declared itself a state, Israel relied on Iran as part of Israel’s periphery doctrine to shield Israel from its larger, less friendly neighbors. As such, Jews and Israelis were active in the highest levels of Iranian government and had access to Iran’s most important information as well as its treasury. In addition, Israel had commercial relationships including a very lucrative oil shipping-and-trading corporation that provided substantial revenue flows to Israel.

    How have Jews and Israelis repaid Iran for the centuries, indeed millennia during which Jews have enjoyed security and prosperity in Persia/Iran? In this video Caroline Glick gives thanks for the war between Iran and Iraq: “May it last a hundred years.”

    People who have a passing acquaintance with Glick’s schtick know that she is a hate monger.
    But her point of view on the Iran-Iraq war is not outside the mainstream of Israeli thinking and practice. Ronen Bergman wrote in The Secret War with Iran,

    “Operation Seashell [Israel’s project of selling arms to Khomeini’s Iran during the Iran-Iraq war] . . .puts the later Iran-contra scandal to shame.

    “There were four main reasons why Operation Seashell went forward. First, Israel could not come to terms with the military, intelligence, and diplomatic losses that it had sustained with the disruption of relations with Iran after the revolution. Arms exports would at least give it a foothold in Tehran. In Israel’s defense establishment, the lesson had been learned . . .that swiftly supplying weaponry and military know-how . . . will bring the supplier as close as possible to the rulers, because the weapons are their means of holding on to power.

    “Second, it was hoped that the infusion of weaponry would intensify the Iran-Iraq war and lead to the mutual destruction or, at least weakening, of two enemies.

    This is precisely the strategy that the US State Department and Congress, in collaboration with the Israelis, is carrying out by creating ISIS — which Iran is fighting; by arming Saudi Arabia, which also supports al Qaeda and/or ISIS, and by the KSA war in Yemen, where once again US and Israel benefit doubly from arming an enemy of an enemy.

    Back to Bergman:

    “Third, Israeli officials feared a victorious Saddam Hussein.

    Interesting insight: If Saddam lost he lost, and if Saddam won he lost. As we have seen.
    Never forget: Benjamin Netanyahu, Sept. 12, 2002, US Congress, Washington, DC. “Wage war on Iraq.”

    Bergman again:

    “Finally, more than anything else, the weapons industry wanted to make money. As one Israeli Defense Ministry official, a key figure in Operation Seashell, recalls, “I do not remember even one discussion about the ethics of the matter. All that interested us was to sell, sell, sell more and more Israeli weapons, and let them kill each other with them.

    That’s what happens to a nation that has afforded Jews over 2500 years of security and prosperity.

    In sum, International Jew, if the Iranians did seek to destroy Jews, who could blame them? The astonishing, and humbling, and exemplary reality is that the Iranian people have no such desire or intention. Neither did the German people, but International Jewry Declared War on Germany with the intention of bringing that nation to its knees, the better to swoop in and destroy it in a savage firebombing campaign that incinerated 600,000 German civilians and reduced to dust 800 years of Germany’s heritage — something like what ‘ISIS’ did to artifacts in Mosul and Nimrod.

    Come to think of it, that was Abraham’s first public act — destroying the icons of another people’s culture.

    Americans, how do you think you will fare having given a piddling 100 years or so of your blood and treasure to support the zionist entity?

  4. It will never cease to amaze me how US liberals can whine about LGBT rights and then go on a holiday in the “Kingdom.” How they can rave about womyn’s rights and give a free pass to the Saudis. How the military-industrial-intelligence complex demolished half the Middle East, but never touched Saudi Arabia, even though most of those supposedly responsible for 9-11 were Saudis.

    I mean, the hypocrisy is heroic.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Sherman
  5. Realist says:

    “I mean, the hypocrisy is heroic.”
    As is always the case with the U. S.

  6. @solontoCroesus

    International Jewry Declared War on Germany with the intention of bringing that nation to its knees, the better to swoop in and destroy it in a savage firebombing campaign that incinerated 600,000 German civilians and reduced to dust 800 years of Germany’s heritage

    I’m proud to have an intellect of such caliber presenting the opposing view, and I hope Pat reads this to see who’s his friend.

  7. IBC says:

    Hitler and Nazis did not seek to destroy the Jews either.

    Why make ridiculous claims like that? It damages the credibility of whatever else you have to say and exemplifies the kind of “crazy talk” AIPAC accuses the Iranians of. Are you trying to help Iran or hurt it?

    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
  8. No problem with the gist of Pat’s argument but it’s short on history .. the rise of the ayatollahs was a direct consequence of our CIA’s overthrow of Iran’s elected government and subsequently propping up the Shah who generated enough hate from his own people with (CIA assisted) brutal rule, the Iranian people would have followed any indigenous Iranian revolutionary movement to be rid of the Shah. The consequent rise of the ayatollahs were a case of ‘chicken come home to roost’ in relation to American foreign policy. If there is ever to be an intelligent relationship with Iran, coming clean on history is merely the 1st step; ceasing the dirty work has to follow and we’re not even close to that:

    Insofar as ‘the bomb’ .. all that would do is make Iran Israel’s equal in the region and insure Iran could not be pushed around to the extent they had been in the past. Considering history, if one could set aside personal prejudices, it would make perfect sense for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons; it seems to be the only thing could cause aggressive behaviors from certain western democracies to be held at bay

  9. @IBC

    Because it is not a ridiculous claim.

    Here’s what Richard Breitman and Allan Lichtman wrote on the first page of their book, “FDR and the Jews:”

    “Upon gaining power in 1933, Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis targeted for persecution alleged blood enemies of the German race. Yet before the war Nazi oppression of German Jews followed a jagged trajectory. Some Nazi activists physically assaulted Jews in the early exuberant days of Hitler’s semi legal revolution. Once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence, but enacted a series of discriminatory laws and decrees, what contemporary observers called Hitler’s “cone pogrom” against Jews. Only in late 1938 did central authorities instigate the violence known as Kristallnacht — the night of broken glass–wiping out synagogues across the country in a matter of days. For the first time, the Gestapo imprisoned tens of thousands of German Jews in concentration camps that also held other alleged enemies of Hitler’s new Reich. ”

    Take away the florid language and the bare facts are these: between a time shortly after gaining power in 1933, and November 1938, NSDAP “curbed violence against Jews,” and, although other “enemies of the Reich” — i.e. Communists — were sent to concentration camps in that period, no German Jews were sent to concentration camps until after November 1938.

    Assess that set of facts against this statement that Rabbi Stephen Wise includes in his autobiography and that Edmund Black quotes in his book, “The Transfer Agreement” —

    “Within a fortnight of der Fuhrer’s January 30 appointment, Justice Brandeis shocked Rabbi Wise by candidly declaring, “The Jews must leave Germany. There is no other way. ” An astonished Rabbi Wise asked, “How can five hundred eighty-five thousand people be taken out of Germany?” Brandeis interrupted: “I would have the Jews out of Germany . . . I urge that Germany shall be free of Jews. . . .No Jew must live in Germany.” ”

    The emigration of Jews from Germany, at a time when “violence against Jews was curbed” and “no Jews were sent to concentration camps” was at the directive of a major leader of the Jewish people. That it coalesced with the preferences of the German government is undeniable but secondary: Jewish people in Europe had a long history of acting “corporately,” and in migrating from Germany to Palestine German Jews were responding to the directives of Jewish leaders such as Brandeis as well as the ideological imperative that the diaspora return to Palestine.

    Indeed, the German government did endorse Jewish emigration, and cooperated with Haganah’s Mossad le Aliyeh bet (Committee for Illegal Immigration) to assist in “facilitating the clandestine movement of Jews from central Europe to Palestine,” according to Francis Nicosia in “Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany.” Nicosia quotes Ehud Avriel, former Mossad agent in Vienna —

    “In pre-war Germany, these operations were neither illegal nor secret. The Gestapo office directly across the street from our own knew exactly where we were and what we were doing. The illegality began only at the shores of Palestine with the British blockade.”

    Nicosia quotes other Mossad members who said that “German Jewish organizations were fearful of becoming involved in the illegal immigration process,” and still others who said that

    “the Nazis were so eager to get Jews out that any request from him to have people released from Dachau, Buchenwald, or Sachsenhausen would have been granted had he been able to guarantee their removal to Palestine.”

    Yes, the German government made no secret of and actively collaborated with Jewish agents to facilitate fulfillment of Brandeis’s diktat.

    These facts — that NSDAP “curbed violence against Jews,” and assisted in their emigration militates against the proposition that “Hitler and Nazis sought to destroy Jews.”

    If you’d like, we can discuss the concepts from Hebrew scripture that inform the ideologues who urged FDR to wage war on Germany; who persuaded Bush to invade Iraq; and who are pulling out all the stops to seduce the USA to wage war on Iran. Their drive is for “creative destruction” and genocide, and nothing less. They serve a psychopathic god.

    I am passionate about stopping the demented campaign of AIPAC and Likudniks to destroy Iran, together with the rest of the Middle East.

    Colleagues and fellow activists make the same argument that you have made — that asserting the truth and supporting it with facts and logic damages the case for Iran; after all, AIPAC, that arbiter of truth, calls truth “crazy-talk.”

    I understand their point of view: holocaustism and all of the lies that are essential to support it have become deeply embedded in the Western psyche. That is not the same thing as being true: truth is the mind’s assent to reality, and much of holocaustism is as in touch with reality as was Rabbi Wise’s claim that “Nazis are making soap and lampshades out of Jewish flesh,” which, according to Peter Moreira in “The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr.,” Wise told to Morgenthau in 1942. Morgenthau recorded that the information “changed my life.” That information, that lie, had serious consequences that cost millions of lives.

    An historical narrative that is so grossly distorted is worse than knowing no history at all; it is reliance on false information, a lie, an entire pattern of lies.

    I respectfully disagree with those who, in good faith, argue that it is counterproductive to challenge holocaustism or false narratives of the World War I, Versailles, Weimar, and World War II era. I believe that facts based on sound evidence, understood logically, are the strongest defense against those who have taken nations to war on lies and propaganda.

  10. @International Jew

    Better a friend of Buchanan than of Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, etc. And pick a country already dude – this “International” stuff is why you are disliked so much.

  11. @International Jew

    Iran can go ahead and do all that good stuff without nukes or ICBMs.

    Except that you don’t get to decide who can go ahead with what and who cannot.

    By the way, precisely what species of cactus is it – the consumption of which just before you start the day hunting for the latest article any remotely connected with Israel – that led you to believe that the Persians can pushed around just like the Palestinians?

    America is bleeding to death, just like Babylon and Byzantium and Germany and Russia and whatever other God-forsaken places the Jews have had made their breeding ground; I suspect that cactus high must be overpowering, but don’t expect America to play Xerxes this time.

    A “deal” with Iran would be great. Unfortunately, what Kerry is negotiating is a Western capitulation.

    It not “Western capitulation” as you so disingenously and ergo, Jewishly, put it; rather it’s Jewry’s schizophrenic hallucination that Heinrich Himmler has been re-born in Qom.

    ALSO, Jews are NOT a Western people and have no moral or historical right to opine what is constitutes a “Western capitulation”.

    You do however, as needless as it is to remind you, have the right to care deeply about what is good for the Jews.

    I only insist that you stop dissembling about it, and articulate your thoughts – howsoever poisoned they might be with your particular ethnic identity – as defiantly as a man with even one functioning testicle would.

    The Hitler/Stalin lesser-of-two-evils analogy is a good one.

    Nope. From a patriotic Weimer era German’s POV, Hitler was a German nationalist who fought and fell to liberate his downfallen people and their decaying civilization from a small hostile alien minority who wielded a disproportionate influence in the economic/cultural/political life of his country, and who for their own varied ethnic interests used that influence to engage in deeds that was sapping Germany of its life.

    It’s somewhat like the helots deciding one day that would take no more shit from the krypteia.

    I’m proud to have an intellect of such caliber presenting the opposing view, and I hope Pat reads this to see who’s his friend.

    What you really wanted to say: “F***ing Nazi Fascist Anti-Semitic Jew-Hater!!! How dare this goy expose our co-ethnics’ shenanigans to people who might always give us the Old Testament treatment as payback!! Pat! Paaaaat!!! How dare your writings attract the attention of this a**hole who knows what a spade is and calls one exactly that!! Disavow him now…. OR ELSE!”.

    By the way, this infantile dissing and cussing combined with Kosher Nostra style veiled threats reminds me of a few Tribals that lost their minds – assuming quietly arrogantly that each had one in the first place – and took on the indomitable old school American patriot Michael Scheuer, only to have their emails published online (see here and here and here and here), for the reading pleasure of us evil Jew-haters who for some inexplicable reason give the Jews no love.

  12. Dutch Boy says:

    Mr. Buchanan persists in his delusion that American foreign policy ought to serve American interests. No wonder he went nowhere in his presidential bids.

  13. matt says:

    As a Constitutional Conservative Patriot, I think that what Obama is doing is treasonous. He is endangering our National Security by paving the way for the Mullahs to get a nuke on their own, instead of selling them one of our own nukes for money that we can use to pay of our debt to China. smdh…

    • Replies: @hbm
  14. Cato says:

    It seems we will have a Middle East wide civil war, Sunni vs. Shia. This so obviously sucks, it’s amazing that our leaders didn’t try to head it off. Oh wait, they were focused on so much more important stuff, like making sure that black kids were not punished for misbehaving in school.

  15. @solontoCroesus

    What Jewish cities are you referring to?

    If one is a bit more granular and drops to the level of towns, villages, and districts – where a lot more people actually lived – your narrative not only collapses, but reverses. How many German villages were destroyed? Almost none. How many Jewish villages were destroyed? Nearly all.

    Narratives warm the hearts of those who would love to feel like victims, but facts are pesky things. You are not simply wrong, you are ill. You have anosognosia.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  16. @fredyetagain aka superhonky

    You are missing the intentional irony of International Jew’s handle. You also reversed IJ’s “friend” claim – that the accuser is making himself out to be Buchanan’s friend, not that Buchanan has reached out to him in friendship. It’s not a small distinction. It’s a warning to Buchanan to re-evaluate, not an accusation against him.

  17. Clyde says:
    @International Jew

    Pat is saying nothing here. He is a piss-poor Middle East analyst. I agree with him on all other matters such as immigration, free trade and economic nationalism. But when it comes to the Middle East of Jews, Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Alewites, Druze, etc., he is lost in the woods.

    The Persians are very smart. I hope they one day revert back to Zoroastrianism. Yeah, fat chance! But they were Sunni until the 1700s when a new dynasty came in and they converted en masse to Shiite. Their mullahs aspire to be “the strong horse” that converts the Sunni nations of the M.E. to Shiite and Twelverism. This is in their Twelver end times scenario. They want and need nukes to accelerate this scenario.

    Interesting that the Sunni Saudis never complained about Israel’s nuclear weapons but are now publicly stating they will acquire Pakistani nukes if-when Iranian Shiites arrive at them.

  18. hbm says:

    The more I think about this thing, the more likely it seems to me war on Iran is a foregone conclusion and these talks are theater.

    Obama is just being circumspect, getting his pretext ducks in a row, for the inevitable moment Iran is found violating the terms of the agreement, and so the bombing can begin.

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Jewish Cities”. What an idiot.

  20. Sherman says:


    I thought you told me you weren’t an anti-Semite :).

  21. Justin says:

    Do we really need a “deal” with Iran? Do we really need to deal with any Middle Eastern countries?

    Let’s leave these warlike, backward desert tribesmen to their own affairs, and stop giving them weapons and money. That includes Sunnis, Shi’ites and Jews.

    If America had a sane government, we would cut ties with all of them–Sunni, Shi’ite, Jew, etc. We don’t need their oil. We don’t need their terrorism. We don’t need their wars. We don’t need their AIPAC or their Arab Lobby. The entire mideast isn’t worth the blood of one unhyphenated American.

  22. I may be naive but isn’t it time the US at least threatened to behave like a traditional hegemon? What’s wrong with a deal which includes the clear understanding that the US is threatening to use overwhelming destructive force the moment after Iran tests a nuclear weapon or claims to have one or be entitled to and about to have one. The force threatened would be precisely whatever was required to ensure destruction of Iran’s relevant facilities (including air raid defences if utilised) without regard – except that in practice warning leaflets would be dropped – for whatever else might be destroyed. What’s not to like?

    • Replies: @matt
  23. matt says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    What’s not to like is that if we threatened overwhelming force against Iran the moment the they test a nuclear weapon, that would probably cause them to forego acquiring a nuclear weapon. That would be bad, because it would be good if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon. We should stop trying to convince them not to get one, and just give one (or more) to them. That would be good.

  24. @Assistant Village Idiot

    What Jewish cities are you referring to?

    If one is a bit more granular and drops to the level of towns, villages, and districts

    Quite right, but I can give you “Jewish cities” too if you want them. Warsaw was 1/3 Jewish in 1939. Lwow, Minsk, Vilna, Czernowitz, and most other Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Lithuanian cities you can find on a map today were 1/3 to 2/3 Jewish before the war. Some of those cities were destroyed just as thoroughly as Dresden and Hamburg, but even in the ones that survived architectural annihilation, the prewar Jewish population was gone by the end of 1943.

  25. Conatus says:

    I think the Samson option is rarely discussed. Israel if threatened with nuclear extinction then nukes European capitols like Rome and Paris. Thre is a wikipedia entry on it.Perhaps that is why we care so much about Iran?
    Does Pakistan not have the ability to nuke Israel? Only India.

  26. Max says:


    You were going great there ’till you mentioned al Quaeda doing 9-11! LOL! Do you honestly believe the tripe that passes as the official story of 9-11?? No; really??

    Dude, do just a tiny bit of research. Are you afraid MOSSAD would wack you for telling the truth? HA! I know you’re not stupid enough to believe the absurd 9-11 lie.

    It’s the Jews, stupid! You know that.

    You just lost major credibility with me, ya big pussy!

    Max Starkman

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2
How America was neoconned into World War IV