And the chaos continues...day of death in Baghdad - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-19-2007, 10:53 PM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 06:49 PM
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?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:56 PM   #107
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:59 PM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:01 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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?
If the themes expressed in this speech are considered to be Boston Liberal - then count me in their number.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:01 PM   #110
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:03 PM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I'm sure I would have if I was alive during the 60's.
...and since you were not...you disagree with them?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:13 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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?
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:38 PM   #113
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


...and since you were not...you disagree with them?
The idea of context is lost on you, isn't it?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:48 PM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:01 AM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 03:49 AM
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.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:13 AM   #116
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:16 AM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:22 AM   #118
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:32 AM   #119
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 03:49 AM
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.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 04-20-2007, 12:38 AM   #120
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com