Dear Moderator

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I have told you, and you have ignored, that my post about the speech was not about Sachs' article, Biden, Putin, or Ukraine.  It was about the profound meaning and relevance today of the speech itself.

You jumped in to turn the discussion to those things it was not about.  Classic highjacking.   Not satisfied, you falsely claimed my post was redundant to the post about Sachs' article and repeated that enough so the moderator dumped the whole thing into "politics".

I then posted this thread as a simple request that the mod restore my original post without your highjacking and all that followed it, so that people, if they wish, could comment on my ideas.  You're back talking about the Sachs article, Biden, Putin, and Ukraine.  Could there be a more blatant example of highjacking a thread than this?

Roger,

Your thread was, in essence, a repetition of Jeff Carter's previous thread about the Jeffrey Sachs JFK Peace Speech op-ed.

And the Sachs op-ed was an implicit criticism of Biden's Ukraine defense policy.

Ergo, discussing the specific historical details of Putin's Ukraine invasion, and Biden's policy, does not constitute "hijacking" of your redundant thread.  My posts were precisely on topic.

See if you can figure that one out.

You and Ben Cole seem to have a strange notion that posting redundant criticisms of Biden's administration on the JFKA forum is entirely acceptable, but any on-topic response to the criticism constitutes "hijacking" of your threads.

Edited June 13, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/12/2023 at 10:27 AM, Roger Odisio said:

....and so you combined [the two threads] without first asking me....

 

Roger,

I did ask everybody if they wanted me to append the two threads. Only Jim D. replied.

Since it's your thread, if you let me know that you really want the two threads separated, I will do so.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Roger,

The very nature of your topic practically invites others to make contemporary political comments in relation to it. Which is fine.... if it isn't on the JFK Assassination Debate forum. The reason we can't have it here is that the admin team decided that the last big shakeup we experienced was largely a result of current political discussions taking place.

To prevent that from happening again, we decided that contemporary political discussions should take place on non-JFKA Debate forums. The one exception that we made was with regard to the 56 Years thread, which was very popular till it blew up. To keep that thread going, we decided to segregate it along MAGA/non-MAGA lines. Still, since it is not segregated along left and right-wing lines, it was moved to a special forum we call the Water Cooler. Though it was made easier to access, so that it feels like it is part of the JFKA Forum.

These steps we have taken have worked out very well.

Now, regarding your topic:  I personally am interested in it. But I can't make an exception for it because it would be unfair to other forum members who want to create a political discussion thread but can't have it in the main JFKA Debate Forum.

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Why ask me, Paul?

Ask the people in eastern Europe who have been so desperate to join NATO during the past 30 years.

Why have eastern Europeans, themselves, wanted NATO and the EU to expand eastward, in your opinion?

 

Why? Because it’s your opinion I’m trying to elicit in the matter. Not your opinion of Putin or your lectures on Russian history, just your opinion of NATO’s expansion. My opinion is that NATO should have ended after the Warsaw pact was dissolved. Russia had good reasons for believing that their good faith actions would end the Cold War, and many diplomats here agreed. Instead we’ve added 15 mostly former Warsaw Pact members. What is NATO? A MILITARY ALLIANCE. Qui Bono? 

[James DiEugenio]

Katrina Vanden Heuvel and James Carden wrote a column about this speech.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/09/jfks-peace-address-at-60/

She did a spot on Democracy Now.  (I hate that show so I will not link to it.)

Kennedy made his great civil rights speech within 48 hours of this one.  I think these two plus his 1957 Algeria speech are his best three.  I actually like the Algeria speech more since that was done in an almost empty house and strongly against the grain of the times.

Imagine someone making three speeches like that in 6 years.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

55 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Why? Because it’s your opinion I’m trying to elicit in the matter. Not your opinion of Putin or your lectures on Russian history, just your opinion of NATO’s expansion. My opinion is that NATO should have ended after the Warsaw pact was dissolved. Russia had good reasons for believing that their good faith actions would end the Cold War, and many diplomats here agreed. Instead we’ve added 15 mostly former Warsaw Pact members. What is NATO? A MILITARY ALLIANCE. Qui Bono? 

Paul,

     Would you agree that the former Soviet Union experienced serious instability following Gorbachev's ouster?

     Meanwhile, the thesis of Catherine Belton's history of Putin-ism (Putin's People) is that Putin and his KGB associates had anticipated the collapse of the USSR, and had intended to re-construct a totalitarian police state on the ruins of the bankrupt USSR.  

      Putin initially posed as an enlightened democratic leader in the late 1990s, before gradually destroying the foundations of a democratic Russia, subverting the constitution, and re-establishing a totalitarian police state.

       He was always contemptuous of liberal democracy.

       Next, he proceeded to re-construct the Soviet empire, in opposition to Western democracy in Europe.

       Did it have to happen that way?  Could Russia have, instead, developed as a free, prosperous, convivial member of the European community? 

        Why not?

        Was Russia's regression to anti-democratic  totalitarianism in the 21st century NATO's fault?

        And under the circumstances, should NATO have ceased to exist?

Edited June 13, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Roger,

I did ask everybody if they wanted me to append the two threads. Only Jim D. replied.

Since it's your thread, if you let me know that you really want the two threads separated, I will do so.

 

I didn't see your question, Sandy, until after you moved my thread.

 

There was no reason to combine the two threads in the first place.  Which can be seen from even a cursory look at the titles.  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, vs  The relevance of  JFK's peace speech to the JFKA and where we are today.

 

The first thread discusses Biden, Ukraine, and Russia in the context of the speech. My thread never mentioned those things, but instead focused on the enormous importance of the speech itself, and how JFK's ideas have reemerged today.  I asserted that the current movement to create a multipolar world in unanticipated places, involving about 70% of the world's population,  replacing the "rules based order" run by the US (replacing "a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war", JFK said), is precisely what JFK had in mind in his speech.

 

The thread was highjacked into a back and forth on issues that mirrored the first thread, falsely claimed it was therefore redundant, and then moved before any such discussion could happen. 

 

So the question is "not" whether the threads should be separated, they obviously should, but whether points posed in my thread should be restored here for discussion.  What say you?

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

That is not an answer to Paul's question.

With no Warsaw Pact, a unified Germany, and the USSR dissolved, what was the point of NATO expanding all the way to the Russian border?

And no one has replied to my previous question: how was NATO justified in bombing Africa?

I don't think Kennedy would have allowed either.

I mean, we live in a world created by the Neocons.

Edited June 13, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Roger,

Your thread was, in essence, a repetition of Jeff Carter's previous thread about the Jeffrey Sachs JFK Peace Speech op-ed.

And the Sachs op-ed was an implicit criticism of Biden's Ukraine defense policy.

Ergo, discussing the specific historical details of Putin's Ukraine invasion, and Biden's policy, does not constitute "hijacking" of your redundant thread.  My posts were precisely on topic.

See if you can figure that one out.

You and Ben Cole seem to have a strange notion that posting redundant criticisms of Biden's administration on the JFKA forum is entirely acceptable, but any on-topic response to the criticism constitutes "hijacking" of your threads.

I have discussed several times why my post and Jeff's post, while each starts with the speech, go in very different directions. discuss different aspects of it, and make different points about it.  I did so again a few minutes ago in response to Sandy Larsen.

 

Your response? Well, in essence (complete with italics for emphasis) the posts are redundant, so it was OK, you were precisely on topic, when you discussed in my thread topics like Putin's Ukraine that appear only in Jeff's post. 

 

I can only marvel at how you think you can get away with such arid nonsense.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is not an answer to Paul's question.

With no Warsaw Pact, a unified Germany, and the USSR dissolved, what was the point of NATO expanding all the way to the Russian border?

Overwhelming support by the peoples of the former Soviet Bloc.

•  Slovenia — 2003 Slovenian European Union and NATO membership referendum, 23 March 2003, 89.6% in favour, turnout 60.2%
•  Hungary — 2003 Hungarian European Union membership referendum, 12 April 2003, 83.8% in favour, turnout 45.6%
•  Lithuania — 2003 Lithuanian European Union membership referendum, 10–11 May 2003, 91.9% in favour, turnout 63.4%
•  Slovakia — 2003 Slovak European Union membership referendum, 16–17 May 2003, 93.7% in favour, turnout 52.1%
•  Poland — 2003 Polish European Union membership referendum, 7–8 June 2003, 77.5% in favour, turnout 58.9%
•  Czech Republic — 2003 Czech European Union membership referendum, 13–14 June 2003, 77.3% in favour, turnout 55.2%
•  Estonia — 2003 Estonian European Union membership referendum, 14 September 2003, 66.8% in favour, turnout 64.1%
•  Latvia — 2003 Latvian European Union membership referendum, 20 September 2003, 67.5% in favour, turnout 71.5%

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

And no on has replied to my previous question: how was NATO justified in bombing Africa?

It wasn’t.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't think Kennedy would have allowed either.

So JFK wouldn’t have enforced Pax Americana in Africa but would have in Eastern Europe?

NATO and Russia had no standing to negotiate away the rights of smaller countries to self-determination.

[Sandy Larsen]

56 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

So the question is "not" whether the threads should be separated, they obviously should, but whether points posed in my thread should be restored here for discussion.  What say you?

 

Roger,

Please tell me specifically why you don't want your thread to be posted in the Political Discussions forum. I might be able to find a solution to this problem.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Let me repeat Paul's question and he can correct me if he thinks i am incorrectly stating it.

What was the purpose of expanding NATO to the border of Russia in the wake of the unification of Germany, the fall of the USSR, no Warsaw Pact, and the promise that NATO would not expand beyond Germany?

William has not replied to this question.  But most objective people would think that it is quite provocative to be able to have missiles about 100 miles away from your border.  (Cue October 1962)

Is it not the function of statesmanship to anticipate such things? Example:  Kennedy thought the Turkish missiles had been removed at the time of the Missile Crisis.

Was all that has happened as a result of this worth more than the price of Ukraine staying neutral?

And I repeat, do you really think Kennedy would have let it unfold as it has?  Has it not been a disaster for Ukraine?

Edited June 13, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Ben,

You were warned to quit spamming the board with RFK Jr. items that have nothing to do with the JFKA.

Even if you did do it again, your penalty wouldn't be that bad. You would lose posting privileges for one day.

 

Sandy--

Thank you for your response. 

But everything about the RFK Jr. campaign is about the JFKA! 

RFK Jr. is the lone candidate who would open up the JFK Records Act. 

The Biden Administration has done a snuff job on the JFK Records. 

Operation Mockingbird is in effect against RFK Jr., precisely because he would open up the JFK Records, and has spoken bluntly about the CIA's role in the JFKA. 

Every issue will be thrown against RFK Jr.---no one will say out loud, "We are trying to kill RFK Jr.'s campaign as he is a threat to the globalist Deep State."

They will say RFK Jr. is an anti-vaxxer, or deluded on foreign policy, he is batty, look for some sex charges to be dredged up. "Only nuts support RFK Jr., he believes in conspiracy theories. His own family is against him." 

The Biden Administration-media is doing a snuff job on the JFK Records Act and the RFK Jr. campaign. 

The EF-JFKA should copy the media's lead? 

PS--I think the EF-JFKA would have a larger audience if members did not receive a Niagara of feculent invective for having various points of view.  

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me repeat Paul's question and he can correct me if he thinks i am incorrectly stating it.

What was the purpose of expanding NATO to the border of Russia in the wake of the unification of Germany, the fall of the USSR, no Warsaw Pact, and the promise that NATO would not expand beyond Germany?

The arrogance of Great Powers.

NATO and Russia had no standing to enforce this pinky swear “promise.”

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

William has not replied to this question.  But most objective people would think that it is quite provocative to be able to have missiles about 100 miles away from your border.  (Cue October 1962)

The Russians legitimately feared a Polish invasion?

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is it not the function of statesmanship to anticipate such things? Example:  Kennedy thought the Turkish missiles had been removed at the time of the Missile Crisis.

Was all that has happened as a result of this worth more than the price of Ukraine staying neutral?

As long as there is a territorial dispute in Ukraine it cannot join NATO.

There was no further threat of NATO expansion.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

And I repeat, do you really think Kennedy would have let it unfold as it has?  Has it not been a disaster for Ukraine?

Blame Putin.  Finland-in-NATO is an even bigger disaster for him.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Brancato]

Cliff - are you equating the European Union with NATO? Even a cursory look at voting in the only country in your list where the vote was both for EU and NATO membership shows that the latter was less acceptable to the voters than the former. The others on your list were only about the EU. 
You refer to a pinky swear promise. Well, maybe you are right in the sense that history proves that it was not made in good faith. It was however made, really, and you should know that. You do don’t you? That’s why you refer to it in this derogatory fashion, because it had no legal weight. (Here’s a question for you - were you in favor of NATO’s eastward expansion the whole time? Or just since Putin’s invasion?) Did it have moral weight? Or were our statesmen lying? Well, to hear them tell it they thought they were telling the truth, but later on of course the neocon crowd went about making Eastern Europe safe for American weapons. 
PINKY SWEAR? Have you signed on to the neocon Pax Americana? I am absolutely shocked at the lack of deep thought here. The issue is not how we feel about Russia, anymore than it was how the American public and its 1963 president felt about the Soviet Union. (Remember Krushchev banging his shoe? Or the Hungary invasion)  It’s about being aware enough to see things from both sides, to recognize the futility and horrors of war (wake up) and choose economic and social battlefields instead of military ones. Of course - duh - he would not have allowed NATO expansion. If you think otherwise you are ill informed and under-read, and I wonder why you even care to participate here. Of course you wouldn’t support Bobby Jr, you’d vote Biden all the way.