Benjamin Cole Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 7 hours ago, Matthew Koch said: Well, I used his last two speeches but here's another one, lol. MK-- You have a point, and also there are speeches JFK gave during the 1960 campaign in which he looked a bit nutty, expounding fervently about the "missile gap." On the other hand, every pol gives speeches out of both sides of their mouth, or uses phrases that can be read in one or more ways. I think the Big Picture is JFK would have avoided losing situations, such as Vietnam, or a nuke war with Russia over Cuba. JFK certainly thought fighting the Nazis and Imperial Japan were very worthy endeavors, and he would likely think the same thing today about Putin or Hamas/Tehran. Just IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 The whole Missile Gap mess was caused by Stu Symington who had been secretary of the Air Force. And advised Kennedy with this false information. Once in office, Kennedy had McNamara examine it and it turned out to be false. The better example that Matt did not use, was the whole snafu about Dulles and Lemnitzer wanting a nuclear strike on Russia for the fall of 1963. Kennedy walked out of the meeting, and told Rusk, and we call ourselves the human race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 (edited) Matt, are you getting desperate? That does not align with BRICS at all! Anyone who reads what I wrote will understand that I never said that about Kennedy. What I said about JFK was that he maintained that, as long as the USA backed imperialist/colonial powers or acted as one, they would be on the wrong side of history. This was made manifestly clear in his Algeria speech and his Foreign Policy article which he wrote the following year. After which he became the unofficial ambassador for Africa in the senate. Another example would be Congo, and his reaction to Lumumba's death. Also, his reliance on the UN as a fulcrum for Congo, and not using NATO, a distinct difference between him and HIllary Clinton in Africa. What he was doing was showing there was another way for the USA to react to nationalism in the Third World one that lessened the appeal of communism. As the book he so admired The Ugly American said, if all America had to offer in the Third World was anti communism, we might as well fold up our chairs and go home. By reverting back to militarism after his death, that gave rise to things like BRICS and the Road and Beltway effort. Edited June 3 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 (edited) And using the Berlin speech is really another case of missing the point. The Pentagon--Lemnitzer and LeMay-- wanted to provoke a war in Berlin. And Nikita K had threatened as much at the Vienna summit. Nikita decided to build the Berlin Wall instead. To which Kennedy replied, better a wall and not a war. But that was not good enough for the Pentagon. Lucius Clay, commander in West Berlin, decided to begin secret maneuvers to tear down the wall. So he built a duplicate in the forest and used tanks with bulldozer attachments to simulate tearing down the wall. General Bruce Clarke heard about this and put an end to it and told him if it did not stop, he would call JFK. Clay stopped it. (Douglass, pp. 109-10). Nikita thought, and he was right, that this idea was not Kennedy's. (ibid, p. 111) Without knowing what Clay had done, Kennedy was now informed of the whole CheckPoint Charlie crisis that Clay had provoked. The tank confrontation at the Brandenburg Gate. This came very close to being a tank battle in the streets since the Russians now called out their tank detail to confront Clay's. Kennedy immediately got on the phone to Khrushchev. RFK called Bolshakov. Through this negotiation a mutual withdrawal plan was arranged and both sides abided by it. The tanks were withdrawn. Berlin was very important symbolically to Kennedy. Because to him it was the key to holding together the Atlantic Alliance. And that is what that speech was about. But as anyone objective can see, Kennedy accepted the building of the wall, and then he snuffed out any kind of shooting war over the city. This was a similar reaction to Kennedy not escalating the Bay of Pigs, when Nixon told him he should declare a beachhead and send in the Marines. It was also like drawing the line at advisors in Vietnam-and then withdrawing those, when almost everyone else wanted to insert combat troops.. And also similar to his refusal to bomb the missile silos for fear of killing innocent civilians--when again not only did many want that, some even wanted a fulls scale invasion. There is very much a discernible pattern to Kennedy's foreign policy actions, once one examines it in detail using the right sources. And his gestalt was much different than those who came before him and right after. Edited June 3 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Matt, are you getting desperate? That does not align with BRICS at all! Anyone who reads what I wrote and will understand that I never said that about Kennedy. What I said about JFK was that he maintained that as long as the USA backed imperialist/colonial powers or acted as one, they would be on the wrong side of history. This was made manifestly clear in his Algeria speech and his Foreign Policy article which he wrote the following year. After which he became the unofficial ambassador for Africa in the senate. Another example would be Congo, and his reaction to Lumumba's death. Also, his reliance on the UN as a fulcrum for Congo, and not using NATO, a distinct difference between him and HIllary Clinton in Africa. Desperate? I cited what I said, did you, Jim? No, you didn't.. So, please elaborate how BRICS aligns with Kennedy's policies that I cited speeches to if I'm so wrong. The Soviet Union was a Imperialist Power also it just aligns with your political biases This this exactly what the end of Reclaiming Parkland doesn't get when it venerates Georgy Zhukov who is partly responsible for that 20 dead figure (led the Hungary massacre JFK cites in the video of the the post Bay of Pigs speech on 4/20/61. UN was used so the US Troops weren't (America First isolationism) Why is it that when people like Sachs, Aaron Good, You and people who appear in Destiny Betrayed that you guys cite Kennedy's Peace Speech but leave out that it is based on the Vatican Document of Pacem in Terris and act as though the "Peace Speech" is based on JFK Liberal Politics and not his Religion. Why is it that now that I'm taking the advice of Richard J. Walton and listening to what Kennedy actually said. What I'm noticing most is that the "Radical" left took out and never cited the Bible Quotes in JFK's Speeches Edited June 3 by Matthew Koch Grammar and tried to make a little less inflammatory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 Matt, I just explained in detail what I meant by the reference to BRICS. I do not think I can get much more clear than that. If you do not understand it, please read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: Matt, I just explained in detail what I meant by the reference to BRICS. I do not think I can get much more clear than that. If you do not understand it, please read it again. What I am saying that I don't think you understand is, is this: The Martyr stood for something and it wasn't BRICS Nations leading the World. Those counties hardly fit into the definition of Freedom and Liberty used by JFK. What I'm asking is for you to please articulate how JFK's policies were in line with a world led by China, Russia, Brazil, Iran, and Saudia Arabia aka B.R.I.C.S. Kennedy wanted a world were Nations were nationalist and they put their own interests first instead of Globalist Imperalists reaping the benefits. He was not in favor of Lumumba getting Soviet Planes to do military exercises against Katanga kind of self government. 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: The whole Missile Gap mess was caused by Stu Symington who had been secretary of the Air Force. And advised Kennedy with this false information. Once in office, Kennedy had McNamara examine it and it turned out to be false. The better example that Matt did not use, was the whole snafu about Dulles and Lemnitzer wanting a nuclear strike on Russia for the fall of 1963. Kennedy walked out of the meeting, and told Rusk, and we call ourselves the human race. This is not accurate, Kennedy took over a country with the Missile gap from Eisenhower who had the Military Industrial Complex Speech (Same day Lumumba was executed) JFK ran on a Missile Gap, gets elected and is informed that America is like 20 to 1 Superior. What does JFK do? Increases the Military Industrial Complex after Vienna give this a listen: What does the Military Industrial Complex that Kennedy made bigger do? 'They' Kill him for making a back door SECRET deal for peace with the Soviets that took nuclear weapons out of Italy and Turkey and was secret for like 17years. This is why the plot is the way it is, because it involves National Security and Nuclear Weapons and JFK's Vietnam withdrawl plans. Edited June 3 by Matthew Koch Formating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 That is what many of us think, despite the military buildup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 JFK represents American Exceptionalism AKA America First Jeffery Sachs Represents American Exceptionism United Nations and BRICS first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 If you take a look at the annual defense build ups either in size or part of GDP, Kennedy did not at all increase the expenditures in any radical way. These dramatic post WW 2 increases took place under Reagan and W. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said: If you take a look at the annual defense build ups either in size or part of GDP, Kennedy did not at all increase the expenditures in any radical way. These dramatic post WW 2 increases took place under Reagan and W. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget JFK was dead by then, SO.. it's not relevant imo. Now if you could please answer some of the points asked above, that would be great (in Lumberg voice) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 (edited) Calling Kennedy an America First guy is inexplicable. The America First movement was an isolationist kind of group. JFK was not like that at all. He had an activist foreign policy. I know this since I studied it for years. And it was especially prevalent in the Third World. I did a talk about this in Pittsburgh last November, and I will be doing a two part substack article on it soon. Right out of the gate, Kennedy broke with Eisenhower/Foster Dulles in places like Congo, the Middle East and Indonesia. He was very big on foreign aid, and people in congress tried to rebel against him on this perceived extravagance. Kennedy was an internationalist in his scope, as he even wanted to establish relations with our enemies, like Cuba, Russia and China. Edited June 4 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Morrow Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: The whole Missile Gap mess was caused by Stu Symington who had been secretary of the Air Force. And advised Kennedy with this false information. Once in office, Kennedy had McNamara examine it and it turned out to be false. The better example that Matt did not use, was the whole snafu about Dulles and Lemnitzer wanting a nuclear strike on Russia for the fall of 1963. Kennedy walked out of the meeting, and told Rusk, and we call ourselves the human race. As you know, that meeting occurred in July of 1961. QUOTE What makes Castro’s selection of that first-strike nuclear policy so remarkable is that in a meeting in July, 1961, President Kennedy was presented with a plan to launch a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA . The proposal noted the war would begin in late 1963. Kennedy began quizzing the men feeding him this idea on how many millions would perish in such a conflict. Disgusted, the president abruptly walked out of the meeting, and turned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk saying “and we call ourselves the human race.” UNQUOTE [https://medium.com/@marinaonline/the-ultra-reactionaries-global-analysis-of-the-dallas-coup-1a06e606aee0 --- “The Ultra-Reactionaries: Global Analysis of the Dallas Coup,” by “Marina” on Medium on 11-22-2022] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Calling Kennedy and America First guy is inexplicable. 45secs in JFK literally says he's America First 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: The America First movement was an isolationist kind of group. Remember who JFK's Father was Jim and what he is associated with? lol Remember what the charges against JFK were at the Convention by Connally and the LBJ campaign? This is my bibliography btw I have citation for my opinions (Something I'm still waiting on for alot of your prior statements) 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: JFK was not like that at all. He had an activist foreign policy. By 1961 Standards something the Oliver Stone David Talbot Radicals don't seem to NOT understand is that JFK was liberal by those standards. When we compare JFK to say Jeffery Sachs Candidate Bernie Sanders JFK is Conservative [Emphasis added] Aka "Ask what your country can do for you.. Ask what do for you country" That should make the distinction clear as day about your boy Jeffery Sachs who super villian Bill Gates calls the "Bono of Economics"!! 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: I know this since I studied it for years. And it was especially prevalent in the Third World. JFK is the one who did the Cuban Embargo 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Right out of the gate, Kennedy broke with Eisenhower/Foster Dulles in places like Congo, the Middle East and Indonesia. He was very big on foreign aid, and people in congress tried to rebel against him on this perceived extravagance. When I read books about JFK's Administration from people who were in it and happen to be Liberals like Sorenson, Schlesinger, etc very little is written about those places (Indonesia, Middle East, India/China). His foreign aid was Food Programs (which a lot of the third world African countries sold for weapons) and is consistent with is Catholicism. If you don't understand Vatican I Catholics you don't Understand JFK. He was not a Hippy Peace Radical. That is a bastardization of the term Peace JFK in his Peace Speech Quotes the Scriptures Because it's a Matthew 8 reference. 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Kennedy was an internationalist in his scope, as he even wanted to establish relations with our enemies, like Cuba, Russia and China. Internationalist in the fact that he naively believed that the U.N. could be used to broker peace that has been proven to be a big error. The Globalist Olicgharchs that you buddy professor Aaron Good like to not name are people like David Rockefeller are the people involved with it. And since the October 8 attacks the U.N. IS an absolute worthless organization. Q: What was the condition of relations with Cuba?!? A: It was becoming a neutralist country, and that is the reason JFK's embargo is still in effect. Amazing that you and Sachs and Good would side with a Human rights violator like China (West Taiwan) yet say that Trump who is America first in the same way as JFK but not religious is a Dictator. I need citation on JFK and China because I have clips for Walter Cronkite reading the mocking things that China did and said when JFK was killed and the rest of the world including the Soviets were in official government morning. My thesis is that JFK is the 'Last Democrat that loved America' hence he's Conservative by today's standards like Ira Stoll's lacking thesis in 'JFK Conservative'. Which I am making the case for in a better way, JFK took Taylor out of Retirement to create the drum roll please: Counter Insurgency Force know as the Green Berets to fight Communism. The American Exception Aaron Good Jeffery Sachs Thesis is little more than taking Noam Chompsky, Peter Dale Scott, Lance DeHaven Smith, and Glennon into a 'marxist copy someones homework but change it just enough that the teacher doesn't notice'that is a ironically and hilariously a Logic Fallacy (Texas Shooter) ..and twists the Martyr (JFK) to mean something that he doesn't. Which is Anti Americanism. [Emphasis added] Edited June 4 by Matthew Koch Made some stuff bold and added Context in the form of listing countries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Well, back on topic, which is Jeffrey Sachs.... One reservation I have about people like Sachs.... No matter what human-rights oppressions happen in China, Islamia or Russia...they largely go mute. And history shows us that governments that viciously oppress their own populations often extend that suppression internationally. I happen to think the US should have never occupied Afghanistan. But let's face facts: what happens to women and religious and sexual minorities in Afghanistan? Teen girls despair as Taliban school ban continues BBC https://www.bbc.com › news › world-asia-68634700 Mar 22, 2567 BE — According to Unicef, the ban has now impacted some 1.4m Afghan girls - among them, former classmates Habiba, Mahtab and Tamana, who spoke to the ... ---30--- The Taliban are not the good guys. The Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas/UNRWA are cut from the same cloth. Women are 50% of the population anywhere. Can we just whistle in the dark about women's rights, as if such rights are not basic and fundamental? Evidently, for some elements within the US, if the narrative of women's rights in Islamia is inconvenient...then the topic is dropped. See Sachs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now