Pacifism and the Left

[OohPooPahDoo]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

Mitt Romney and his children are all pacifists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They are bastions of learning and enlightenment.

If you equate that with Liberalism, I won't argue.

No sensible human being could agree with your conflation.
Of course, not being sensible, you have no problem with the nonsense.


1. “But for most professors, neither finding truth nor seeking wisdom nor teaching is the primary goal of the university; promoting leftist ideas is. In a talk before fellow economists, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University and secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton, addressed the question of why there were so many fewer women than men in science, math and engineering. He suggested that among other reasons, one might be that women's brains are less suited to these subjects than men's brains. But such empirical truths are not utterable in the most intellectually closed places in America -- our universities. Over 100 Harvard professors signed a petition against President Summers, leftist alumni threatened to give no more money to Harvard, and the vast majority of Harvard's professors kept a cowardly silence while their colleagues sought to suppress completely respectable intellectual inquiry.

…In the year 2005, nearly four centuries after Galileo was forced to recant observable scientific facts about our solar system, the president of Harvard University was forced to do a similar thing.” Professors as inquisitors - Dennis Prager - Townhall Conservative Columnists



2. It is very difficult for many people to acknowledge the low intellectual and moral level to which many professors and universities have fallen. On Feb. 21, the 600 Northwestern University students enrolled in the popular Human Sexuality course taught by professor John Michael Bailey were told that if they wished to stay after class -- it was clearly made optional -- they would see a live demonstration of female ejaculation, the subject of that day's class. A naked young woman (not a student) would demonstrate a "f---saw" and come to orgasm in front of the students. About 120 students stayed.When word came out about this contribution to young people's understanding of life, the university defended it. Its official spokesman, Al Cubbage, released this statement: "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge."

…In Bailey's class and Mr. Cubbage's statement, we have reached the logical culmination of the '60s and '70s. Instead of studying Dead White European Males, students get to study a young white living female ejaculating with a f---saw…. For four years, the American college student is taught that human beings are animals…. the exhibition is no different than watching a female baboon having sex. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2011/03/08/the_$50,000_orgasm/page/2


3. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.


4. Professor Frank Kauffman…”An independent report on the School of Social Work at Missouri State University says officials there bullied students by creating "an atmosphere where the Code of Ethics is used in order to coerce students into certain belief systems," documenting allegations made by a Christian student who was penalized under the system.”

Frank G. Kauffman (Missouri State University)
As WND reported late last year, Missouri State social work professor Frank G. Kauffman was placed on leave as part of a settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker.
She refused his assignment to lobby for homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs, and then was brought up on ethics charges within the program's system. Her lawsuit, handled by The Alliance Defense Fund, was settled quickly by the school with the leave of absence as well as monetary damages and a removal from her record of the charges against her. ‘Toxic’ environment after Christian’s complaint


5. There are at least five areas to which PC applies and where it succeeded in imposing a fair amount of conformity. They are: 1) race-minority relations; 2) sexual and gender relations: 3) homosexuality; 4) American society as a whole; 5) Western culture and values. In regard to each, PC prescribes publicly acceptable opinions and attitudes which are often conveyed on the campuses by required courses, freshman orientation, sensitivity training, memoranda by administrators, speech codes, harassment codes, official and student publications and other means.

Deviations from the norm of PC may result in public abuse, ostracism, formal or informal sanctions, administrative reproach, delayed promotion, difficulty in finding a job, being sentenced to sensitivity training.

Paul Hollander, “Political correctness is alive and well on campus near you,” Washington Post, December 28, 1993, p. A19


I wonder if your opinion will change once you attend college....

Dennis Prager.

It's cute how you use wingnut opinion columns to try to back up your bullshit.

Bet you have that 'deer in the headlights' look right now!


I just love it when you have no answers for my posts....

....but I understand it: Liberals have no experience in real debate.
Bet you yearn to be back in the echo chamber right now.



"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"
Coulter

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

Mitt Romney and his children are all pacifists.

I see you are equally expert in this area of interest, too...

"If in fact he gets to be president, all of these positions will be rationalized away in the pursuit of the American national interest,” predicted Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.
Romney hopes to contrast his unapologetic calls for U.S. strength with a president he will try to cast as weak and tentative, despite Obama’s success in finding and killing Osama bin Laden — something that eluded the Bush administration for seven years.
The risk for Romney is that he will be cast — just as Obama cast Sen. John McCain in 2008 — as the candidate of endless war. And if Romney wins the presidency, some of the clear stands he’s taken — from confronting China over its currency to refusing to talk to the Taliban about a negotiated settlement in Afgahnistan — could hem in his policy choices."


Read more: Mitt Romney hawks new hard line on foreign policy - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

 

[regent]

Sounds like liberalism is simply those things that some do not believe. Is that what many universities teach, that which people don't believe? Is there a way or a method to find the truth about the universe, life, politics, people, and that which is about us? If so, should universities teach what that method is and how to use it, or is that a form of indoctriation? Should universities just expand on what high school teach, avoid contoversy and have limits?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sounds like liberalism is simply those things that some do not believe. Is that what many universities teach, that which people don't believe? Is there a way or a method to find the truth about the universe, life, politics, people, and that which is about us? If so, should universities teach what that method is and how to use it, or is that a form of indoctriation? Should universities just expand on what high school teach, avoid contoversy and have limits?

"...avoid contoversy (sic)..."


Wow....did you miss the point.

The aim of most universities is to secularize the captive student-body. In that light, they concentrate on Liberal views, Liberal orthodoxy, and penalize both students and faculty who stray from same.

I gave examples above in the post to Sindy.


Tradition and Judeo-Christian values are shunned, cause for amusement, held in disdain.

The first Progressive President, Woodrow Wilson, set the tone:

“The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.”
"The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.


Of interest, as well, is the witness-testimony of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, in "The Death of Feminism:"

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.

[In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear."

If one attends government schools, and secular university, only the strongest and best informed can resist the brain-washing.

 

[Too Tall]

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. George Orwell

Warriors so long as the poor do the fighting.

Dick Cheney Draft Dodger
George W. Bush Draft dodger
Mitt Romney Draft dodger
Rush Limbaugh Draft dodger

Lots more - all praise war, while none put their money where their mouth was.

Lots more below.

Punditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores Online)

George Will, did not serve
Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve. (However, apparently served in the Peace Corps.)
Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
Paul Gigot, did not serve.
Bill Bennett, Did not serve
Pat Buchanan, did not serve
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve, too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and Fiji
John Wayne, did not serve
Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality, was a "Liquor Officer."
Bill Kristol, did not serve
Sean Hannity, did not serve.
Kenneth Starr, did not serve
Antonin Scalia, did not serve
Clarence Thomas, did not serve
Ralph Reed, did not serve
Michael Medved, did not serve
Charlie Daniels, did not serve
Ted Nugent, did not serve
Country Singer Toby Keith, did not serve. (1)
Radio Host Phil Hendrie, did not serve.

Who served?

George W Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard. And, there has never been a National Guardsman, who is not on active duty, charged with being AWOL. Read the UCMJ if you don't believe me.

What branch did you serve in?

 

[Too Tall]

"On Tuesday, liberal talk show host Bill Press expressed disgust with the national anthem on his syndicated radio talk show, calling it an "abomination."
"It is a major crusade of mine; a major cause of mine, and that is to get rid of the Star-Spangled Banner," he said, according to a transcript provided by the Radio Equalizer.
... I mean when you think about it, it’s bombs bursting in air rocket’s red glare it all kinds of, you know a lot of national anthems are that way, all kinds of military jargon..."
Liberal talk show host Bill Press: National anthem an 'abomination' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

Pretty much the OP right there....

OR that it's really an awful song.

There are a lot of songs like America the Beautiful that are more inspiring about what America should be about.

A song written during America's stupidest war (The War of 1812) about how he loves him a flag isn't what America is about.

America the Beautiful wouldn't make it.

God shed His grace on thee

would have you atheist liberal bastards calling the ACLU to sue for violating the mythical separation of Church and state.

How about God Bless America? OOPS, same problem.

 

[salem.hills]

Sounds like liberalism is simply those things that some do not believe. Is that what many universities teach, that which people don't believe? Is there a way or a method to find the truth about the universe, life, politics, people, and that which is about us? If so, should universities teach what that method is and how to use it, or is that a form of indoctriation? Should universities just expand on what high school teach, avoid contoversy and have limits?

Well the indoctrination is as bad in high school it starts in elementary. They condition the kids early, the kid is told oil bad at every turn but green energy that's non existant and never ever ever can replace oil is good. Its been going on since the 60's at least

 

[Too Tall]

Does the Left embrace pacifism, or does the Right embrace brutality?

The left embraces pacifism, another word for cowardice, while the right embraces survival.

 

[Too Tall]

Now you are not being honest.

The 'punishment' for the Right in not agreeing to find a solution to the debt ceiling is to penalize the military.

This is in comparison to punishing the Left vis-a-vis entitlements...

But, you are aware of that....aren't you.

It's a "punishment" because each side considers those respective issues as high funding priorities. To say that actually harms the military is laughable. Even with the cuts, we're still spending around the same amount as the rest of the world combined. That's absurd in and of itself, until you then add on that most of the other big spenders are our allies.

This post is beyond tap dancing....it's Hip Hop!

1. "...still spending around the same amount as the rest of the world combined."
And that pertains.....how?
A discussion of the importance to world stability of the United States military is for another day.

BTW...Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 20%

2.National Defense $738 20%

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94
The same 20% as Social Security.

The fact that the Left threatens the military because the Right "considers those respective issues as high funding priorities" is strong evidence for the OP.

Is that the budget Obama proposed that was voted down in the Democrat controlled Senate 97-0, or was it the one that was not even voted on?

 

[regent]

Of the hundred or so wars and military engagements this nation has been involved with, how many were wars of self defense and survival and how many were wars of taking from other nations? Perhaps some Americans are now seeing that all wars and military operations are not survival but while some may be worthwhile and some are not, and perhaps some Americans can see the difference. Then too, maybe the old saws, coward, traitor, communist, and so on, don't work anymore. Perhaps TV, veterans and being sucked into recent stupid wars has made Americans a little more wary of the speeches, the band music, and the coat-holders doing the inspiring?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Maybe this guy no longer gets lumped with "the left"?

Well, he's a little left of this guy;

 

[Too Tall]

What does any of that have to do with his statement that Obama killed 11 Al Qaeda members?

C'mon.... I know you're Erroneous Joe...but I believe you know how to read.

Case in point: "Republicans start wars, Democrats win them."
Did you miss that in his post?


Would you like to agree with pre-schooler on that?

C'mon, Erroneous,...you take a shot at Republicans every time you can...so how about it:
"Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.?

True or false?

Again, not sure what your lame answers had anything to do with that statement, either. Vietnam started with Eisenhower going along with propping up the Saigon Government even after being told that the Vietnamese would elect Ho Chi Mihn if a national election occurred.

And, yeah, Clinton stated that Saddam had WMD's, but he didn't invade in violation of world opinion to find out he was wrong.

The last war "won" by a republican was maybe the Spanish American War. Sorry, I don't count Gulf War I as a "win" as we had to go back and do it again 12 years later.

Actually, what my parents used to say back in the 1970's was that "Democrats brought us wars, Republicans brought us Recessions".

now Republicans bring us both.

Which is what happens when you let your party get hijacked by Plutocrats and Theocrats.

Woodrow Wilson (D) was president all during WWI with the loss of 33,746 US military combat troops. No Republican Presidents in that one.

WWII was started on FDR's (D) watch with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and ended on HST's (D) watch. One source counted 291,557 American military combat deaths. No Republican Presidents involved in that one either.

Korea was started and ended by HST (D) with the loss of 33,746 American military men and women. So far it is all Democrats.

JFK(D) increased the number of military advisors in Vietnam from less than 800 to 16,300. Only a fool would blame that on Ike or his policy. LBJ (D) micro managed the war and at one time had 550,000 troops in country. RMN (R) took way too long, but he ended it with a truce. All told there was a loss of 47,355 American combat troops.

At last, one Republican, and he ended that one.

Then there is the war on terror that was started on GWB's (R) watch with a sneak attack similar to Pearl Harbor and WWII, and Obama is still fighting it from behind in 5 or 6 different countries. Loss of American military so far, 4,977 and counting.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong on every count.

Well, you keep going to the Ann Coulter Crazy Well on that one.

Seriously. Just keep going there.

As time goes by, scholars are less and less afraid to reveal the truth...FDR, McCarthy....I'm looking for the works to come on the rapist.

Scholars today still think McCarthy was an Evil Turd.

 

[Too Tall]

Republicans start wars, Democrats win them.

Ask the 11+ al Qaeda leaders killed by Obama whether Lefties are pacifists.


Dumbass.

Another remedial for a Liberal???

I should get paid to do this....


a. In late 1962, Kennedy was still fully committed to supporting the Diem regime,
though he had some doubts even then. When Senator Mike Mansfield advised
withdrawal at that early date:

The President was too disturbed by the Senator's unexpected argument to reply to
it. He said to me later when we talked about the discussion, "I got angry with
Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself
because I found myself agreeing with him (Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers,
Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970, p. 15).

b. Lyndon Johnson succeeded John F Kennedy as president. Like many ‘hawks’ in the White House, Johnson was a fervent supporter of the ‘Domino Theory’ and he was keen to support South Vietnam against the NLF:

“If we quit Vietnam tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we’ll have to be fighting in San Francisco.”
Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam

c. BTW...right up until his last day in office, the rapist, Clinton, was touting WMD's in Iraq.



BTW...work on your civility.

Eisenhower first sent advisers to Vietnam.


BTW - work on your wingnuttery.

There were less than 800 military advisers in country (Vietnam), 741 if memory serves me, when JFK took office. He had upped it to 16,300 when he was assassinated. That was not in Ike's playbook.

 

[JoeB131]

Another remedial for a Liberal???

I should get paid to do this....


a. In late 1962, Kennedy was still fully committed to supporting the Diem regime,
though he had some doubts even then. When Senator Mike Mansfield advised
withdrawal at that early date:

The President was too disturbed by the Senator's unexpected argument to reply to
it. He said to me later when we talked about the discussion, "I got angry with
Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself
because I found myself agreeing with him (Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers,
Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970, p. 15).

b. Lyndon Johnson succeeded John F Kennedy as president. Like many ‘hawks’ in the White House, Johnson was a fervent supporter of the ‘Domino Theory’ and he was keen to support South Vietnam against the NLF:

“If we quit Vietnam tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we’ll have to be fighting in San Francisco.”
Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam

c. BTW...right up until his last day in office, the rapist, Clinton, was touting WMD's in Iraq.



BTW...work on your civility.

Eisenhower first sent advisers to Vietnam.


BTW - work on your wingnuttery.

There were less than 800 military advisers in country (Vietnam), 741 if memory serves me, when JFK took office. He had upped it to 16,300 when he was assassinated. That was not in Ike's playbook.

True to a degree.

But Ike made the mistake of including South Vietnam in the wall against Communism when in fact, it would have rather been on the other side of the wall.

Ike even suggested to JFK that he occupy Laos as well, to keep the north from sending weapons to the South.

And this was often our problem in the Cold War. We looked at the whole world as a chessboard while the pawns just were concerned about their own square. We supported dictators who did terrible things to their people, but dammit, they weren't dirty stinkin' commies! We gave a shit load of money to Muslim terrorists....er Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan because the Commies might teach women how to read.

Oh, one of those terrorists? A young man named Osama Bin Laden.

 

[Too Tall]

Well, you keep going to the Ann Coulter Crazy Well on that one.

Seriously. Just keep going there.

As time goes by, scholars are less and less afraid to reveal the truth...FDR, McCarthy....I'm looking for the works to come on the rapist.

Scholars today still think McCarthy was an Evil Turd.

The Kennedy's were huge backers of McCarthy. Bet you didn't know that!

 

[Too Tall]

Eisenhower first sent advisers to Vietnam.


BTW - work on your wingnuttery.

There were less than 800 military advisers in country (Vietnam), 741 if memory serves me, when JFK took office. He had upped it to 16,300 when he was assassinated. That was not in Ike's playbook.

True to a degree.

But Ike made the mistake of including South Vietnam in the wall against Communism when in fact, it would have rather been on the other side of the wall.

Ike even suggested to JFK that he occupy Laos as well, to keep the north from sending weapons to the South.

And this was often our problem in the Cold War. We looked at the whole world as a chessboard while the pawns just were concerned about their own square. We supported dictators who did terrible things to their people, but dammit, they weren't dirty stinkin' commies! We gave a shit load of money to Muslim terrorists....er Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan because the Commies might teach women how to read.

Oh, one of those terrorists? A young man named Osama Bin Laden.

Ike had 741 military advisers in Vietnam. Kennedy upped it to 16,300. Some would call that a military threat, especially since Ike had avoided that kind of troop involvement.

On August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.

It's working!

 

[GoneBezerk]

Dumbfuck....

I know about our targets for nukes, I did that job early in my career....shut the fuck up.

You go on and on about China having less nukes than us. How many nukes do they need to take out Honolulu or Los Angeles, eh dumbfuck? They have improved their space and missile technology to deliver those nukes today compared to 10 years ago, that is the fucking point.

Oh, you don't think Iran nuking Israel or Saudi Arabia is a big deal. You are clearly a piece of shit that lives in your trailer park believing nothing else matters except coming home every night to your blow up doll and a case of a beer.

Also....Shut the fuck up about your peon 11 years in the military, that was a blip for my dad and me.

As for Syria, I know a lot more about it than you will ever know.

FYI....Russia is now sending ATTACK helicopters to Syria but of course you claim they're not causing trouble in the world.

You're such a fucking idiot.

If the Cold War was really over, then Russia would quit targeting US cities with nukes. ?

So you've gone over and checked the targetting computers on those nukes? How do you know they are targetting our cities? Are we targetting their cities?

Uh, China's military took a leap forward in the 90s when Bill Clinton allowed US missile technology to help their ICBM and space programs, which are big threats to us. China has a nukes, dumbfuck.?

China has had nukes since the 1960's. It still didn't really make them a threat. They have 240 warheads compared to we and the Russians having 5000 each.

No, what has made China a threat are big corporations closing down factories in this country and moving them to China for cheap labor. What makes China a threat is that they now hold 8% of our debt and could crash our economy merely by asking us to pay it off. And we can thank Republicans and its Plutocratic wing for that one.

Iran is not obsolete if they get nukes like you want, idiot. They rely on assymetric warfare in the Gulf region with fastboats shutting down shipping lanes and using their terrorist networks spread out around the world even here. ?

Again, if Iran got a nuke, it would be a weak fission bomb. The US has 5000 nukes. Israel has 200. Pakistan has 100 and India has 100.

As for shutting down the shipping lanes (Seriously, don't you think that our 11 Aircraft Carriers could put a stop to that?) the only reason that's a big deal is because people like you let the Oil Companies have their way with us. We should have gotten off petroleum 40 years ago the first time the crazy folks over there started screwing with us.

As for Russia, you clearly don't have a fucking clue to overlook them supporting Assad RIGHT NOW in Syria while he murders thousands there to stay in power. Nevermind giving weapons and intelligence aid to Saddam right up until we bombed his ass gone. Let's see....Iran's nuclear program right now is being supported by Russia as well as their air defense systems being upgraded to prevent an attack by us and Israel.

You are dumber than shit and should be banned from this board.

?

Why is what's going on in Syria our problem? Are you willing to send your kid over there to fight? Frankly, it's a fight between Shi'ites and Sunnis over how many Imams can dance on the head of a pin, and I'm not seeing a compelling American interest.

You jokers on the right bitch about the folks who overthrew Mubarek not being our buds, what do you think the people who might overthrow Assad are going to be?

 

[JoeB131]

There were less than 800 military advisers in country (Vietnam), 741 if memory serves me, when JFK took office. He had upped it to 16,300 when he was assassinated. That was not in Ike's playbook.

True to a degree.

But Ike made the mistake of including South Vietnam in the wall against Communism when in fact, it would have rather been on the other side of the wall.

Ike even suggested to JFK that he occupy Laos as well, to keep the north from sending weapons to the South.

And this was often our problem in the Cold War. We looked at the whole world as a chessboard while the pawns just were concerned about their own square. We supported dictators who did terrible things to their people, but dammit, they weren't dirty stinkin' commies! We gave a shit load of money to Muslim terrorists....er Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan because the Commies might teach women how to read.

Oh, one of those terrorists? A young man named Osama Bin Laden.

Ike had 741 military advisers in Vietnam. Kennedy upped it to 16,300. Some would call that a military threat, especially since Ike had avoided that kind of troop involvement.

On August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.

It's working!

Wow, repeating your retarded point about number of military advisers doesn't improve it.

We all got it the first time you said it, really.

Point was, Ike was the one who made the commitment to Saigon. Never should have, but he did.

As for the working class "burying" us, I'm always wondering why the GOP and the Right has such a fantastic hostility to working people.