Dear Moderator

[Roger Odisio]

I started my thread to explain what I see as the relevance today of the JFK peace speech (that was the title). I did not mention Sachs' article which I think just scratches the surface of what is important about the speech.  I did not mention Putin, Biden, Ukraine, etc.  I concluded with the observation that, interestingly, today it is the "non-Western" world (excluding the US, Western Europe, Australia, and maybe Canada) that has taken up the gauntlet laid down by JFK in the speech .  I wanted to hear reaction to that point from those who have followed the recent move to replace US hegemony that Kennedy so despised with a multipolar, peaceful economic system.  

 

Instead, ignoring my point, early on Niederhut  sought to change the discussion into being about his usual punching bags.  Unfortunately others took the bait, obscuring the original message .

 

Yes, that part of the thread Is not relevant to the original message. Much of it has little to do with the JFKA.

 

But you moved the whole thread, apparently validating Niederhut's false claim that my thread, being about the Sachs article and not the speech itself, was redundant to the earlier one (and so you combined them without first asking me whether that was true!)  Niederhut even said:  "As Sandy Larsen pointed out, the various iterations of the Sachs thesis are all framed in terms of a criticism of Biden's current response to Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine"  Since my thread was not about "the Sachs thesis" (whatever you think that is) this is a clear irrelevancy.

 

I ask that you restore to this site my original post so that people who agree with my original point, and those who disagree, may have the chance to respond.  I count 5 posters who thought the thread was relevant before Niederhut's intervention. That was in the first day or two.  Perhaps there are more.

[W. Niederhut]

Here's a multiple choice question for Roger Odisio and the forum.

I.  A Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin, seeks to invade and annex additional territory of a free, sovereign, democratic nation in Europe.

    Which June 1963 JFK speech most accurately describes JFK's likely response to Putin's invasion and attempted annexation of Ukraine?

A)  JFK's June 10, 1963 Peace Speech, in which he extolled the general ideal of trying to seek peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, if possible

B )  JFK's June 11, 1963 Civil Rights Speech

C)  JFK's June 26, 1963 Berlin Speech, in which he pledged to defend West Berlin from a Russian dictator who was seeking to annex the territory of a free, sovereign democratic city in Europe

D)   All of the above

E)   None of the above

Edited June 12, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

By William's reply above, I think Roger is correct.

 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Here's a multiple choice question for Roger Odisio and the forum.

I.  A Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin, seeks to invade and annex additional territory of a free, sovereign, democratic nation in Europe.

    Which June 1963 JFK speech most accurately describes JFK's likely response to Putin's invasion and attempted annexation of Ukraine?

A)  JFK's June 10, 1963 Peace Speech, in which he extolled the general ideal of trying to seek peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, if possible

B )  JFK's June 11, 1963 Civil Rights Speech

C)  JFK's June 26, 1963 Berlin Speech, in which he pledged to defend West Berlin from a Russian dictator who was seeking to annex the territory of a free, sovereign democratic city in Europe

D)   All of the above

E)   None of the above

This post is about whether to restore the points for discussion in my original thread before you interjected your distractions.  Now you're back with more off topic irrelevancies.  Please stop the nonsense.

[James DiEugenio]

The approach of JFK to something like this would have been a much more rational and thought out one than what the Obama, HRC, Bush 2, Biden one was and is.

I cannot believe that anyone on this board has not read about Kennedy's presidency and his actions for example in Laos, the first Vietnam debates, the Missile Crisis and over Berlin.  Kennedy's hallmark was to ask a series of probing questions--always pushing the military guys to reply as to how many men can the opponent put in the field and how fast can they get there.  Then ask, what do we have on the perimeter and how fast can we get them there.

Laos is a perfect example of this.  Kennedy essentially disarmed the hawks by posing those questions. He then brought in the ambassador and asked him, tell me what you think of the situation on the ground.  He started to reply with, "Well the CIA thinks that..."  Kennedy interjected with, "I don't want to know what they or the Pentagon think. I want to know what you think." HIs opinion was it did not have to be militarized.  And that is the route JFK took.

To compare Germany with Ukraine is off the wall.  Germany was really the main reason for NATO.  Germany was never part of the USSR.

Ukraine was part of the USSR, and represents a remarkable expansion of NATO east to the border of Russia.  To any objective person it looks to be provocative.

As I said, Kennedy would have never tolerated the bombing of Africa by NATO.  And in my view he would have asked some sensible questions about refusing to deal with Moscow over this issue. 

1. What is the worst possible outcome? 

2. What if Russia throws down the gauntlet over this particular expansion?

3. How does Ukraine match up militarily with Russia?

4. Most of the war would be fought in Ukraine, can their economy sustain it?

5. What is the air element involved?  Who will dominate the air and how and why? 

6. Because of its size, population and economic advantage would not Russia just be able to grind down Ukraine?

7. If Russia starts bombing Ukraine, what about the refugee problem?  If millions leave what will that do to the morale of Ukraine?  And also recruitment?

8. Finally, is a possible war with Russia worth all of this? Considering the fact that they could come out 1.) Looking even stronger than before, and 2.) Binding themselves closer to China.

9.  Did we not tell Gorbachev that once Germany was reunified, NATO would not go beyond that point?

10.  What is the tactical advantage of having NATO at the border of Russia?  Do we plan on invading Russia? Count me out. 

Those are the kinds of questions I think JFK would have asked.  He then would have contacted Putin and sent representatives to the bargaining table and hammered out an agreement.  Anyone with half a brain--which excludes the nutty neocons--would have realized this is not worth it. 

PS During the Brandenburg gate incident, Kennedy was talking to Nikita, finding a peaceful way out.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Cummings]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

This post is about whether to restore the points for discussion in my original thread before you interjected your distractions.  Now you're back with more off topic irrelevancies.  Please stop the nonsense.

Then perhaps a private message would be more appropriate. You're posting this in a forum thread.

[James DiEugenio]

He is trying to get back to his original point.

And that is what I tried to reply about.

[Paul Cummings]

It's times like this when I say THANK YOU to the moderators and what you do! 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

By William's reply above, I think Roger is correct.

 

Jim,

     You, Oliver Stone, Jeff Carter, et.al., have always dodged the damning facts about Putin's openly expressed contempt for liberal democracy, and his transformation of the Russian Federation's nascent Yeltsin-era democracy into the current quasi-fascist Russian Federation police state.  He has murdered journalists and turned the Russian media into an organ of state propaganda, while incarcerating opposition leaders. 

     I have tried to share some insights with you guys about Putin's history, based partly on my direct observations within the Russian Orthodox (ROCOR) community during the past quarter century, to no avail.  Your flawed paradigms about Putin-as-NATO-victim are, apparently, fixed in concrete.

      Even when Putin launched missiles into residential apartment buildings in Ukraine, and started shipping Ukrainian civilians to Russian exfiltration camps, you and Jeff Carter remained silent-- always blaming NATO for the 1997 Putin/Dugin agenda of annexing Ukraine.

      Now Putin is blowing up dams in Ukraine and deploying tactical nukes in Belarus.  He's, obviously, pursuing "multi-polar peace"-- using Iranian drones to attack civilian targets in Ukraine, and using his Belarusian dictator/puppet, Lukashenko, to deploy nukes.

      As for Roger Odisio, let's look for a moment at his absurd premise about the totalitarian states he imagines are interested in "multi-polar" peace...

Roger Odisio wrote:  I concluded with the observation that, interestingly, today it is the "non-Western" world (excluding the US, Western Europe, Australia, and maybe Canada) that has taken up the gauntlet laid down by JFK in the speech .  I wanted to hear reaction to that point from those who have followed the recent move to replace US hegemony that Kennedy so despised with a multipolar, peaceful economic system.  

       How absurd is Odisio's concept-- in the context of the Kremlin's current destruction of Ukraine-- that Putin is seeking a JFK-esque "peaceful, multi-polar system?"

       The notion is ludicrous.

        Are Putin's close allies in Iran and nuclear North Korea seeking a peaceful world?  Better living through drones and ballistic missiles?

       How did "US hegemony" work out for Western Europe after WWII, in comparison with the totalitarian Soviet Bloc?

       How did "US hegemony" work out for Japan and South Korea after WWII-- in comparison with Soviet-aligned North Korea?

       Would Odisio choose to live in South Korea or North Korea today?  Munich or Minsk?

       As for my analogy (above) about West Berlin in June of 1963 and Ukraine in 2023-- it isn't about geography.  It's about democracy and freedom vs. Russian totalitarianism.

       JFK sought peace, and wanted to reign in the Cold War hawks in the U.S. military-industrial complex, but isn't it also the case that he was committed to defending liberal democracy from totalitarianism, as he said in Berlin on June 26, 1963?

       Someone needs to remind Odisio (and Oliver Stone) that democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government.

    

Edited June 12, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

To all of the above. I reply with this:

You don't deal with what you wish you had, you deal with what you have.

And that is the message of the Peace Speech.

[W. Niederhut]

36 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

To all of the above. I reply with this:

You don't deal with what you wish you had, you deal with what you have.

And that is the message of the Peace Speech.

And JFK did the best he could with a difficult situation.

I will add to my critical comment about Oliver Stone's take on Putin, (above) that I also believe Oliver Stone's critique of the U.S. military-industrial complex-- in Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Heaven & Earth, The Untold History, Salvador, JFK, JFK Revisited, et. al.-- is brilliant stuff.

I will also add that I got called into the principal's office in about (?) 1972 for publishing a criticism of Nixon's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, in our school newspaper, after some parents from the local Air Force base called to castigate the principal.

I have long been a critic of the U.S. military-industrial complex.

[Paul Brancato]

46 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

And JFK did the best he could with a difficult situation.

I will add to my critical comment about Oliver Stone's take on Putin, (above) that I also believe Oliver Stone's critique of the U.S. military-industrial complex-- in Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Heaven & Earth, The Untold History, Salvador, JFK, JFK Revisited, et. al.-- is brilliant stuff.

I will also add that I got called into the principal's office in about (?) 1972 for publishing a criticism of Nixon's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, in our school newspaper, after some parents from the local Air Force base called to castigate the principal.

I have long been a critic of the U.S. military-industrial complex.

So why can’t you view this conflict with clearer eyes? What happened? Russia was a dictatorship under Stalin, and continued under Krushchev, yet JFK could hold contradictory ideas, as expressed in the American University Speech, and still come down on the side of peace, and he could put things in historical context. He took our missiles out of Turkey. He was able to view the world not just through his eyes but others too, including enemies. Empathy is pretty great, yet sorely lacking these days. Tell me, we’re you in favor of NATO’s eastern expansion?

Edited June 12, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[W. Niederhut]

38 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

So why can’t you view this conflict with clearer eyes? What happened? Russia was a dictatorship under Stalin, and continued under Krushchev, yet JFK could hold contradictory ideas, as expressed in the American University Speech, and still come down on the side of peace, and he could put things in historical context. He took our missiles out of Turkey. He was able to view the world not just through his eyes but others too, including enemies. Empathy is pretty great, yet sorely lacking these days. Tell me, we’re you in favor of NATO’s eastern expansion?

Paul,

     I'm looking at both sides of the story in Putin's invasion of Ukraine.   I understand Putin quite well.  He's no victim.

     The people who keep blaming NATO for Putin's decision to invade and destroy Ukraine are the ones who aren't looking at both sides.  They aren't interested in studying Putin's history and agenda, or the antecedent history of Stalinism, which has been largely ignored by Hollywood and our American culture.

     I have posted references on the subject, ranging from Solzhenitsyn, Andreyev, and Preobrazhensky to Aleksander Dugin, Princeton historian Stephen Kotkin, and British correspondent Catherine Belton-- which have been summarily ignored by the Jeff Carter/Russia Today crowd here.

     Putin and his FSB associates have had their own agenda for reconstructing the Soviet empire for the past quarter century.   The Kremlin's invasion and annexation strategy in Ukraine is not simply, or even primarily, NATO's fault, as the Russian propagandists keep saying.

      Nor has NATO posed a bona fide offensive threat to Putin and his neo-Stalinist FSB goon squad.  Rather, NATO has served as a defense against Soviet and neo-Soviet annexations -- the imposition of totalitarian police states on free, democratic European people.

     Under the circumstances-- Putin's creation of a fascist police state in the RF since 1997-- I don't blame the citizens of Eastern Europe for wanting to join NATO.

     No one has compelled these people to join NATO.  They are desperate to do so, as an alternative to living in a Russian-controlled, totalitarian police state.

     As for JFK, peace was his goal, but he was also committed to defending freedom and democracy where it existed-- as in the case of West Berlin in 1963.

Edited June 13, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

Here is a pattern:

1. An EF-JFKA participant will post earnestly about RFK Jr. and Deep State efforts to derail his campaign, or about JFK's peace vision in current context. 

2. The usual suspect shows up to hijack the thread into the blue-red pissing wars, or views about Putin. A side dose of Trump is ever in the picture.

3. The moderator moves intelligent dialog to the boonies. I have even been served notice...I cannot post about RFK Jr. anymore without having posting privileges revoked. 

Frankly, I don't see how RFK Jr.'s campaign is of anything but daily interest in the EF-JFKA. He is the only candidate who will open up the JFK Records upon which President Biden has done a snuff job. 

Evidently, even mentioning President Biden's snuff job on the JFK Records is considered a transgression in some quarters. 

This is the EF-JFKA? 

[John Cotter]

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

This post is about whether to restore the points for discussion in my original thread before you interjected your distractions.  Now you're back with more off topic irrelevancies.  Please stop the nonsense.

Perhaps it's on this thread that I should have submitted my comments about William Niederhut's "shadow projection" in his relentless posts about Putin the Anti-Christ.