And the chaos continues...day of death in Baghdad

[A_Wanderer]

How do you figure?

Liberventionist; at least the palaeoconservatives who opposed the Iraq war also opposed the involvement in the Balkans.

 

[AEON]

It seems BVS could use a business class and a history lesson or two.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't see the place for condacension; BVS defines neocons as the christianist authoritarians, some define them as a zionist cabal but I think that the "liberals mugged by reality" label would be most accurate

 

[BVS]

It seems BVS could use a business class and a history lesson or two.

Uh, yeah.

Why don't you answer the question, while considering context.

And as far as the business course, sure I wouldn't mind taking some more business classes just make sure you tell me where you attended so I can avoid those...

 

[BVS]

I don't see the place for condacension; BVS defines neocons as the christianist authoritarians,

Not exactly but that's part of it...

the "liberals mugged by reality"

I don't agree with the definition, but it's quite humorous...

 

[AEON]

If JFK gave this speech today he'd be laughed out of Washington...please take a moment to read it.

JFK 1960

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe. 2

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

 

[BVS]

If JFK gave this speech today he'd be laughed out of Washington...please take a moment to read it.

Great speech now tell me what part makes him a neo-con.

 

[AEON]

Great speech now tell me what part makes him a neo-con.

Dear Lord...

BVS if you can't see it then you won't see it. That's all I can say.

 

[BVS]

Dear Lord...

BVS if you can't see it then you won't see it. That's all I can say.

I figured you'd have a hard time answering it.

I don't see any using of religion to push legislation. I don't see any cutting of taxes and high spending. I don't see big government in disguise. Nor do I see any agenda to create second class citizens.

So how is it he's a neocon again?

Is it just his use of religion in his speech and his patriotism?

 

[deep]

If JFK gave this speech today he'd be laughed out of Washington...please take a moment to read it.

that speech was for the world events in 1960 and in relationship to the USSR / cold war

why would he give that in 2007?

 

[AEON]

I figured you'd have a hard time answering it.

I don't see any using of religion to push legislation. I don't see any cutting of taxes and high spending. I don't see big government in disguise. Nor do I see any agenda to create second class citizens.

So how is it he's a neocon again?

Is it just his use of religion in his speech and his patriotism?

One of the pillars of neo-conservativism is to spread democracy throughout the world, even if it means using military force. Neocons basically were Democrats that left the party because of its drift to the Far Left. In this sense, JFK could not be an actual neocon. However, my point is this that this speech - if read today - would be instantly lableled as neocon and imperialistic. The same could be said of classic FDR speeches.

 

[AEON]

that speech was for the world events in 1960 and in relationship to the USSR / cold war

why would he give that in 2007?

It isn't a stretch to say that the references to the USSR and Communism could be applied to ANY enemy of democracy.

 

[BVS]

Well like I said earlier, context is everything.

And while yes the desire to spread democracy is a part of neoconservatism(although many will deny nationbuilding) what was happening in the 60's isn't comparible to 2007.

Without context yes this would have been a great comparison, but you can't keep context out of the discussion.

 

[AEON]

Well like I said earlier, context is everything.

And while yes the desire to spread democracy is a part of neoconservatism(although many will deny nationbuilding) what was happening in the 60's isn't comparible to 2007.

Without context yes this would have been a great comparison, but you can't keep context out of the discussion.

So how would you respond if a politician said this today?

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more."

 

[AEON]

Well like I said earlier, context is everything.

And while yes the desire to spread democracy is a part of neoconservatism(although many will deny nationbuilding) what was happening in the 60's isn't comparible to 2007.

Without context yes this would have been a great comparison, but you can't keep context out of the discussion.

Some ideas are timeless. JFK touches on those ideas in this speech. I think it would do this country some good if we heard such speeches today from either party.

 

[deep]

Aeon

you can stir this up anyway you want

but if JFK were alive today

he would not throw in with W and Cheney
don't forget he was a Boston Liberal


Would you consider Bill Clinton a Neo Con?

 

[BVS]

So how would you respond if a politician said this today?

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more."

It probably wouldn't phase me much, I'm used to it now. The neocons definately stole a page from JFK's speech writing team, just not as eloquently.

But once again context can be a bitch...

 

[AEON]

It probably wouldn't phase me much, I'm used to it now. The neocons definately stole a page from JFK's speech writing team.

But once again context can be a bitch...

Do such words still ring true? Or is this something you disagree with JFK on?

I don't agree with everything JFK said, but I certainly agreed with many things in this speech.

 

[AEON]

Aeon

you can stir this up anyway you want

but if JFK were alive today

he would not throw in with W and Cheney
don't forget he was a Boston Liberal


Would you consider Bill Clinton a Neo Con?

If the themes expressed in this speech are considered to be Boston Liberal - then count me in their number.

 

[BVS]

Do such words still ring true? Or is this something you disagree with JFK on?

I'm sure I would have if I was alive during the 60's.

 

[AEON]

I'm sure I would have if I was alive during the 60's.

...and since you were not...you disagree with them?

 

[STING2]

Aeon

you can stir this up anyway you want

but if JFK were alive today

he would not throw in with W and Cheney
don't forget he was a Boston Liberal


Would you consider Bill Clinton a Neo Con?

Yep, a "Boston Liberal" that increased the US presence in Vietnam from 750 in January 1961 to over 16,500 before he was murdered in 1963. What FDR, JFK, Bush Sr, Bill Clinton, W and Cheney all understand is that the United States has vital national security interest through out different parts of the world that must be protected with US military intervention if necessary and that US security is far from being about simply defending US borders in a world that grows more interdependent by the day. The time when the United States could essentially ignore what happened on the other side of the ocean has been over for more than a century now.

 

[BVS]

...and since you were not...you disagree with them?

The idea of context is lost on you, isn't it?

 

[AEON]

The idea of context is lost on you, isn't it?

Not at all - I am putting it into context for you, please answer the question - do you disagree with those particular words in that particular paragraph as it relates to today's particular world?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

It's not the words AEON, it's the action that comes from them.

You might also be the first person to ever draw a comparison between an eloquent JFK speech and any of the ridiculously vague and uninspiring speech's Bush has given. You are right though, he shits on about freedom and spreading freedom a lot - if that's the comparison you are making - but there's a reason why when JFK made that speech it inspired people, and why when Bush etc avoid answering tough questions with vague mumblings about liberty and freedom everyone just rolls their eyes.

On paper, given the opportunity to write one paragraph on foreign policy, call it their Global Mission Statement or whatever, I am sure both Bush's, Reagan, Clinton, JFK, Nixon, Carter etc, they all would look very similar. They'd all have statements similar to that, give or take references to specific threats at the time.

It's in how those goals are achieved.

 

[BVS]

Not at all - I am putting it into context for you, please answer the question - do you disagree with those particular words in that particular paragraph as it relates to today's particular world?

I disagree with them in the sense of Iraq, which is basically what you are trying to twist this to be.

JFK wasn't talking about pre-emptive attacks, made up holy wars, lies about WMDs, and wars with nations disguised as wars on ideaologies.

This is one of the problems with neocons they are so desperate for a real enemy so that they can get the country behind them in some JFK type of way that they have to twist, manipulate, and lie in order to design some foreign issue, because frankly they absolutely suck at domestic issues.

 

[AEON]

It's not the words AEON, it's the action that comes from them.

You might also be the first person to ever draw a comparison between an eloquent JFK speech and any of the ridiculously vague and uninspiring speech's Bush has given. You are right though, he shits on about freedom and spreading freedom a lot - if that's the comparison you are making - but there's a reason why when JFK made that speech it inspired people, and why when Bush etc avoid answering tough questions with vague mumblings about liberty and freedom everyone just rolls their eyes.

On paper, given the opportunity to write one paragraph on foreign policy, call it their Global Mission Statement or whatever, I am sure both Bush's, Reagan, Clinton, JFK, Nixon, Carter etc, they all would look very similar. They'd all have statements similar to that, give or take references to specific threats at the time.

It's in how those goals are achieved.

This is a fair response. I certainly am not an "Ends Justify the Means" type of person. But I also think it is fair to say that none of the leading Democrats would say anything close to what was in that paragraph I pasted. Lieberman said such things, and he had to switch parties (notice he was STILL elected)

If the Democrats dropped the Radical/Anti-War Left and carried on the flag waving JFK/FDR tradition - they would have a near monopoly on power.

 

[BVS]

If the Democrats dropped the Radical/Anti-War Left and carried on the flag waving JFK/FDR tradition - they would have a near monopoly on power.

Have you really ever seen an anti-war democratic politician? Or just an anti-Iraq war democrat?

I'd be willing to bet JFK would not have supported Iraq.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I don't think they would because of exactly what I've said about Bush. You're asking us to tie what Bush says to a JFK quote with JFK meaning, but if a Democrat comes out and says something similar, I think most people will tie it too quickly to a Bush quote with Bush meaning. Does that make sense?

You know if that JFK quote - the paragraph you highlighted - had never been uttered and Bush actually said it today, the first reaction from most would be "Wow. The White House finally hired a competent speech writer" and then they'd think "So he's going to bomb Iran then." That's not what it means, but that's the difference, that's exactly how that belief has been corrupted.

You're right though, the Democrats need to grow a set, and, in a sense, take back ownership of a quote like that and make US foreign policy inspiring again. They are too focused on being the anti. They do need to, to quote a rather popular rock and/or roll band, dream it all up again.

 

[STING2]

Have you really ever seen an anti-war democratic politician? Or just an anti-Iraq war democrat?

I'd be willing to bet JFK would not have supported Iraq.

Well, JFK supported intervention in South Vietnam which is not as vital to US national security interest as Iraq and the Persian Gulf currently.

As for "antiwar democrats" the vast majority of Democrats in both the US Senate and US House opposed the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in January 1991, including Senator Joe Biden and Senator John Kerry.