JFK "Peace Speech" contemporary context

[Jeff Carter]

How JFK Would Pursue Peace in Ukraine

Kennedy’s Peace Speech, 60 years ago, highlights how Joe Biden’s approach to Russia and the Ukraine War needs a dramatic reorientation, writes Jeffrey D. Sachs.

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/06/08/how-jfk-would-pursue-peace-in-ukraine/

[Michael Griffith]

What a load of bologna, and what a misrepresentation of JFK. Just what I would expect from Common Dreams. Biden has been pursuing peace in Ukraine, but it is hard to achieve peace when you have a murderous dictator who is determined to brutalize and subjugate Ukraine. There would be peace in Ukraine tomorrow if Putin announced an end to the invasion and began withdrawing his troops. 

I dare say that JFK would have responded even more vigorously than Biden has. I freely acknowledge that Biden has done much more than Bernie Sanders or AOC or Liz Warren would have done, and I give him full credit and praise for finally authorizing the transfer of jet fighters to Ukraine, but he should have done much more, especially early on. 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

I have great respect for Jeffrey Sachs, and I read his article (above) at Common Dreams with interest this morning.

I considered posting it on the Education Forum.

But my first reaction to this morning's Sachs op-ed was that JFK's June 26, 1963 Berlin speech --and his showdown with Khruschev over Berlin-- is a better example of how JFK would have responded to Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine.

JFK took a strong stance in defense of freedom and democracy in Berlin-- in response to Russian imperialism and oppression.

And JFK's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech was delivered after his American University "Peace" speech.

Admirably, JFK sought peace, but he was also willing to defend democracy from totalitarianism.

Edited June 8, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

In my opinion, the 1963 Peace Speech referred to the postwar detente envisioned by FDR although infused with an existential urgency brought on by the Cuban Missile Crisis eight months previous.

FDR’s vision was not realized due to his death, and due to machinations during the Democrats 1944 Convention when Wallace was moved aside. These events would create the space for the ascendancy of the “Dulles world view”  in the U.S. foreign policy/security architecture. It was the “Dulles world view”, realized during the Eisenhower administration, which Kennedy would come to oppose and would have supplanted if he had received a second term.

One might imagine if the Cold War had been ended in the context of a general detente, then the large military blocs (Warsaw Pact / NATO) would have also been seen to no longer have purpose, and events like NATO expansion and other eventual triggers in Ukraine would never have happened in the first place.

[David Von Pein]

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2015/11/kennedy-gallery-432.html

 

[James DiEugenio]

Berlin had been settled with the wall.  Kennedy considered that a partial victory.

Kennedy's peace speech is part of a new framework in 1963:  the hot line, the Jean Daniel/Bill Attwood approach to Cuba, the startling correspondence of the triumvirate, and the almost astonishing visit of the Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins and his family  to Khrushchev's villa.  (If you have not seen those photos, they are really something, in the film A President Betrayed narrated by Morgan Freeman.)

The Kennedy of 1963 would not have let Ukraine explode in flames like it has.

I talked about this with Aaron Good on American Exception. After LBJ and RMN deliberately and systematically overturned Kennedy's foreign policy, it was then utterly destroyed with the Halloween Massacre under Ford. With that move, Rumsfeld and Cheney clipped Kissinger and got rid of Nelson Rockefeller. because they thought those two guys were too liberal. This was the beginning of the application of the Neocon doctrine at the top level of the American political system. Under Reagan, it conquered Washington and spread to the Democratic party.

Kennedy's foreign policy and his vision of 1963 then became a museum piece.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Cummings]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

In my opinion, the 1963 Peace Speech referred to the postwar detente envisioned by FDR although infused with an existential urgency brought on by the Cuban Missile Crisis eight months previous.

FDR’s vision was not realized due to his death, and due to machinations during the Democrats 1944 Convention when Wallace was moved aside. These events would create the space for the ascendancy of the “Dulles world view”  in the U.S. foreign policy/security architecture. It was the “Dulles world view”, realized during the Eisenhower administration, which Kennedy would come to oppose and would have supplanted if he had received a second term.

One might imagine if the Cold War had been ended in the context of a general detente, then the large military blocs (Warsaw Pact / NATO) would have also been seen to no longer have purpose, and events like NATO expansion and other eventual triggers in Ukraine would never have happened in the first place.

Nicely stated. Thanks.

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

I have great respect for Jeffrey Sachs, and I read his article (above) at Common Dreams with interest this morning.

I considered posting it on the Education Forum.

But my first reaction to this morning's Sachs op-ed was that JFK's June 26, 1963 Berlin speech --and his showdown with Khruschev over Berlin-- is a better example of how JFK would have responded to Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine.

JFK took a strong stance in defense of freedom and democracy in Berlin-- in response to Russian imperialism and oppression.

And JFK's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech was delivered after his American University "Peace" speech.

Admirably, JFK sought peace, but he was also willing to defend democracy from totalitarianism.

Bullseye. I agree 100%. JFK made it clear to Khruschev that he was willing to go to war over Berlin. He sought peace through strength, not peace through kowtowing, weakness, and pleading. 

Before Putin invaded Ukraine, Biden made the mistake of trying to talk him out of it without any threat to resist with force. He also made the mind-boggling mistake of then trying to get the Chinese to talk Putin out of invading, but the Chinese took the classified info that Biden shared with them and shared it with Putin. So Biden did seek peace in Ukraine, but he sought it through weakness and pleading.

During the first week of the invasion, Biden's response was downright cowardly, because he thought that Ukraine would fall a few days after the Russians invaded.

But, to his credit, once Biden realized that Ukraine had a fighting chance, he sent large amounts of military equipment and supplies. He should have sent more, and should have given them more heavy weapons, but he sent them enough to stalemate the Russians. In the last few months, also to his credit, he has given Ukraine anti-air missile systems and heavy artillery. Now, to his great credit, he has finally agreed to give fighter jets to Ukraine. 

Biden has never stopped seeking peace in Ukraine, but Putin has refused all peace overtures because he is still determined to annex Ukraine. 

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, Kennedy actually negotiated with Nikita directly over Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate.

This was when Lucius Clay proved too hawkish--he was actually devising techniques to tear down the wall. That was too much even for the Pentagon. General Bruce Clarke put a stop to it.  Nikita had spies on the scene and they relayed this maneuver to him.  To his credit, the Russian leader understood that this was done without Kennedy's knowledge or permission.

So when Clay sent the tanks with bulldozer shovels, Nikita was waiting for them with his force while awaiting Kennedy's call. 

  It came and RFK also was in on it and they arranged a withdrawal. IMO, it was that incident in which RFK now became the ambassador at large for Kennedy.

That is what we call statesmanship and it is a lost art with the rise of the Neocons. 

Kennedy always admired Hammarskjold, who he called the greatest statesman of the 20th century. And he once said that he could never equal  Dag.  But he tried.

The worst thing about Ukraine is that it has helped create a whole, huge opposition to the USA: India, China, Russia with BRICS and the R and B infrastructure project.  Who can blame them after the American debacles in Libya, Iraq and Syria.  And a refusal to negotiate over Ukraine.  In fact Merkel admitted that was all smoke and mirrors to prepare Ukraine for war.

Never negotiate out of fear but never fear to negotiate.

I thought this site was dedicated to the guy who said that.

[Benjamin Cole]

Press Silence on Latest Twitter Files Scandal a New Low

Newly released documents clearly show the FBI tried to help Ukrainian intelligence censor Aaron Mate, but the mainstream press continues to show their lack of scruple

MATT TAIBBI JUN 8   ∙   PREVIEW Speaking of Ukraine.... My own opinion, which is free and worth it, is that Russia must be blocked from their military invasion of Ukraine.  But, I am cognizant that M$M media today is a mouthpiece for the DC establishment, and we are lied to constantly, about all political events.   When reading about Ukraine, RFK Jr., and the JFKA keep that in mind.  Both political parties would be happy to muzzle social media entirely on all political issues.  You might today be able to find some non-PR jibber-jabber on twitter, under Musk, but who knows.  PS In reading David Sacks, or RFK Jr., it become entirely legitimate to ponder if Biden was cogent in the formation of Ukraine policy under his administration. The Ukraine situation might have been resolved with diplomacy.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[James DiEugenio]

Ben:

Thanks for that, I mean wow.  Aaron Mate is a good journalist.  That is really pitiful.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

54 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

Thanks for that, I mean wow.  Aaron Mate is a good journalist.  That is really pitiful.

 

Jim--

I dare not mention the name, but in his initial presentation on twitter, TC again mentioned the JFKA. 

We might ask why the only M$M journalist to connect the CIA to the JFKA has been booted to twitter.

And why anyone who challenges DC orthodoxy is labelled a right-wing extremist nut. 

RFK Jr. is now a "right-winger" touting "conspiracy theories."  

For me, it doesn't matter if Aaron Mate is a good journalist or not (although IMHO he is a solid reporter).

Since when has censorship become a good thing?

When the two major political parties embrace state-sponsored censorship...reader beware. 

Speaking of which, the JFK Records are still censored.

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Jim--

I dare not mention the name, but in his initial presentation on twitter, TC again mentioned the JFKA. 

We might ask why the only M$M journalist to connect the CIA to the JFKA has been booted to twitter.

And why anyone who challenges DC orthodoxy is labelled a right-wing extremist nut. 

RFK Jr. is now a "right-winger" touting "conspiracy theories."  

For me, it doesn't matter if Aaron Mate is a good journalist or not (although IMHO he is a solid reporter).

Since when has censorship become a good thing?

When the two major political parties embrace state-sponsored censorship...reader beware. 

Speaking of which, the JFK Records are still censored.

 

Gee, thanks for the update, Ben.

I'm sure that we're all shocked to hear that the JFK Records are still censored.

As for your question about when censorship is a good thing, how about in the case of hate speech?

How about speech that incites violence against the citizenry or the Congress?

How about unscientific disinformation that endangers the public health?

How about propaganda from a foreign adversary that undermines the security and welfare of our nation or that of our sovereign, democratic allies?

[Benjamin Cole]

47 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Gee, thanks for the update, Ben.

I'm sure that we're all shocked to hear that the JFK Records are still censored.

As for your question about when censorship is a good thing, how about in the case of hate speech?

How about speech that incites violence against the citizenry or the Congress?

How about unscientific disinformation that endangers the public health?

How about propaganda from a foreign adversary that undermines the security and welfare of our nation or that of our sovereign, democratic allies?

The problem with many of the topics you mention---for example, "unscientific disinformation that endangers the public health"---is that premise to used to censor a lot of information that is inconvenient to authorities. 

The COVID-19 censorship regime, from the virus' likely origins in a lab, to the relative safety of the vaccines, to the stupendous economic costs of shutdowns, was not a good result, IMHO.  

Perhaps you remember when commentary about the lab leak origins of C19 was censored, snd such stories were derided as "debunked." 

I am sure we can have a years-long debate about the various justified and unjustified facets of censorship. 

I prefer to err on the side of free speech, rather than authorities and craven media allies, deciding what should be censored. 

How can FBI-twitter censorship of Aaron Mate be justified?  

 

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The problem with many of the topics you mention---for example, "unscientific disinformation that endangers the public health"---is that premise to used to censor a lot of information that is inconvenient to authorities. 

The COVID-19 censorship regime, from the virus' likely origins in a lab, to the relative safety of the vaccines, to the stupendous economic costs of shutdowns, was not a good result, IMHO.  

Perhaps you remember when commentary about the lab leak origins of C19 was censored, snd such stories were derided as "debunked." 

I am sure we can have a years-long debate about the various justified and unjustified facets of censorship. 

I prefer to err on the side of free speech, rather than authorities and craven media allies, deciding what should be censored. 

How can FBI-twitter censorship of Aaron Mate be justified?  

 

Get a clue, for once, Ben.

I posted back in 2020 that the proximity of the alleged COVID pandemic origin near the Wuhan lab was suspicious.

You weren't involved in our detailed discussions here at the time.

I was never sold on the Wuhan market origin theory.

What does the COVID origin debate have to do with the increased mortality and morbidity resulting from subsequent Trump/Fox/RFK, Jr. COVID disinformation?

Have you studied the differential U.S. COVID mortality rates for Trump counties vs. Biden counties, and vaxxed vs. un-vaxxed citizens?

Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of disinformation (and mismanagement of the COVID pandemic) by Trump and other poorly educated morons, including RFK, Jr.

As for your (above) condemnation of censorship, I gave you multiple counter-examples which are directly related to Trump, Fox News, RFK, Jr., and Elon Musk.

Toxic disinformation that results in mortality and/or violence (including hate speech and stochastic terrorism) should be censored, when feasible.

Are you aware that hate speech on Twitter increased significantly after Elon Musk's disastrous takeover of the company?

Edited June 9, 2023 by W. Niederhut