Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK and George Bush


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

[i don't need to "rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne" because my own views are at least as cynical as his about the Iraq War.

In 1968, when LBJ wanted nothing more than to finally end the war before going off to his haunted retirement, Nixon's election strategy involved conspiring to undermine the Paris Peace Talks. In 1980, during the Reagan/Bush election bid, there was a backdoor deal to undermine a resolution of the Iran hostage crisis. In 2004, the Republican Senate brazenly admittedly to delaying the investigation of the White House manipulation of the intelligence leading to the war until after the election, only to have them subsequently assert once the election was over that the issue no longer had revelation - since the election was over. And of course, everyone stonewalled the Plame treason (Poppy Bush's term) to get through the election.

For four years, every American life lost in Vietnam from 1969 to 1973 under Nixon was wasted; the final settlement was not materially different than the terms available at the beginning of the four years. Even worse, the Watergate corruption and resultant weakening of the government made the later agreement unsustainable. Meaning, for all of those lives lost, we turned a stalemate into a loss. And why? Because we wanted peace with honor. I'm still waiting to hear a single non-excusatory articulation of what honor there is in what Americans did, and what they died for there. As an expression of will, it failed.

After the Republican subterfuge leading up to the election in 1980, whaddya know! We started selling them sophisticated weaponry, paying ransom for hostages, and used the mark-up on the arms sales to fund Latin American attrocities in specific violation of American law. And most of us are aware that many of the Latin American Contra activities involved the same School of the Americas thugs trained up to take out Castro, and who possibly turned on JFK.

Now this current crowd relies for its power on a constant barrage of fearmongering, wrapped in the flag. But what honor is there in using White Phosphorus against civilian populations? How is it not an illegal occupation when, by democratic standards, the majority wants us out? We relied on an agent known to lack credibility named Curveball to take out the secular strongman dictator of a country with three distinct ethnic/religious factions, never considering that democracy is the worst thing that could happen there. The majority of Iraqis support the Shiite theocracy in Iran. We're not worried that if we "cut and run" there will be chaos and civil war; we're worried that Iraq will become Iran's by osmosis.

The use of Kennedy's "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?" is obscenely disingenuously applied to the current circumstance. I know that the death of American soldiers is a minor consideration to some, but how is it that Kennedy navigated the most dangerous era in the history of humanity without any combat troops dying? Less than two hundred military personnel died during the entire course of his presidency, including training accidents and advisors in Vietnam. And most forget the value he placed on the incarcerated Bay of Pigs Cubans, whose ransom was greatly opposed by Republicans. Manuel Artime alone cost $500,000.

The lesson from Vietnam, the so-called Powell Doctrice (how does he live with what he's done?) is that you don't go into a military conflict without overpowering force and a clear Exit Strategy, along with a tenacious avoidance of mission creep. Absent all of these requirements, with no clearly defined mission or exit strategy, every life lost contributes to worse than nothing; it contributes to dimished respect and influence for America in the civilized world and dimishes civil rights and liberties domestically. MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED IN IRAQ THAN FROM ALL THE TERRORISM IN HISTORY.

T.C.

Tim: Great post. But no matter how much logic or eloquence is offered up to Mr Gratz he will continue to defend W and his war. To compare what this president has said and done to JFK is such a right wing rip off.

Whenever the administration is up to no good it manages to co-opt some Kennedy snippet as a pretext to try to justify its behavior.

"Wrap it in religion, wrap it in a flag, wrap it up in anything; all the victims look the same" (Tom Garfield "All In The Name Of...")

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tim, do you REALLY REALLY believe that American troops are indiscriminately killing innocent civilians in Iraq? If so, where is your proof?

Interesting qualifier, Tim G..... "indiscriminately." Intentional or unintentional, dead is dead. Something you'd know had you served, which you apparently did not. Is it not interesting that the biggest cheerleaders for this carnage are those who excused themselves from doing their duty when it came time for them to do so?

You might profit from visiting a site that exists solely to monitor civilian casualties in Iraq. You can find it @:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Here's the result of their aggregate score-keeping to date, based on best guestimates:

A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq

2003–2005

New analysis of civilian casualties in Iraq: Report unveils comprehensive details

"A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005" is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group, is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005.

Findings include:

Who was killed?

24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.

Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.

Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.

When did they die?

30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.

Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).

Who did the killing?

US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.

Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.

Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.

Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

What was the most lethal weaponry?

Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.

Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.

Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

How many were injured?

At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.

The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.

Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.

The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.

Who provided the information?

Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.

Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.

Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.

Speaking today at the launch of the report in London, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the report's authors said: "The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. Our data show that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope that this research will help to inform decision-makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country. It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

I don't need to "rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne" because my own views are at least as cynical as his about the Iraq War.

You're not cynical, Tim C.; merely astute. Recall the words of the great wit George Bernard Shaw:

The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you also believe that JFK was speaking for the MIC during his inaugural address, John?

Sorry there are some things worth fighting for and now, at least, all of our soldiers are volunteers.

Do you think we fought World War II to make money for companies such as John McCone's?

Sure there are capitalists who make money from wars. But it is because of their business capabilities that we have been able to defeat tyrants such as Hitler--and save the posteriors of a lot of Brits while we were at it!

Had it not been for the MIC in WWII, there would be no Jews left in Europe and you would not have the right to criticize either the British or American governments, both of which would be headed by Fascists.

******************************************************

"Had it not been for the MIC in WWII, there would be no Jews left in Europe and you would not have the right to criticize either the British or American governments, both of which would be headed by Fascists."

T.G., you're beginning to sound hysterically irrational to the point of bordering on insane!!! Stop it! It's not very becoming to you.

Have you never watched the documentary, nor read the book "Commanding The Heights"? It states, and I saw it broadcast on PBS, where in 1933 Prescott Bush, Milton Friedman and his friend Friedrich Hayek, met at Hayek's Austrian Alps chalet with Farber, were in total support of Hitler, banking on all the dough they were going to be making while doing business with Germany. Nobody was helping, nor aiding the Jews. In fact, they were all turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the situation. It took the bombing of Britain and France to force the U.S. to quit dragging their feet on getting involved in another war with the krauts.

The fascists have always run the damned show from the time of the Roman Empire, immemorium. It's only after the full impact of a dastardly, egregious, fascist folly that a more liberally leaning politician may stand a chance at taking the helm, and even then he risks being assassinated, either physically, or by character. But, of course as you already know, it's through the utilization of the process of war by which the U.S. culls its own huddled and teeming masses. Don't you get it yet, T.G.? We're going to hell in a bucket, and you could care less. Keep voting for Alfred E. Neuman and The Terminator and you'll really be going places, like to the moon, Alice. POW! ZOOM!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, do you REALLY REALLY believe that American troops are indiscriminately killing innocent civilians in Iraq? If so, where is your proof?

Interesting qualifier, Tim G..... "indiscriminately." Intentional or unintentional, dead is dead. Something you'd know had you served, which you apparently did not. Is it not interesting that the biggest cheerleaders for this carnage are those who excused themselves from doing their duty when it came time for them to do so?

You might profit from visiting a site that exists solely to monitor civilian casualties in Iraq. You can find it @:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Here's the result of their aggregate score-keeping to date, based on best guestimates:

A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq

2003–2005

New analysis of civilian casualties in Iraq: Report unveils comprehensive details

"A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005" is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group, is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005.

Findings include:

Who was killed?

24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.

Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.

Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.

When did they die?

30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.

Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).

Who did the killing?

US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.

Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.

Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.

Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

What was the most lethal weaponry?

Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.

Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.

Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

How many were injured?

At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.

The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.

Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.

The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.

Who provided the information?

Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.

Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.

Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.

Speaking today at the launch of the report in London, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the report's authors said: "The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. Our data show that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope that this research will help to inform decision-makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country. It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

I don't need to "rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne" because my own views are at least as cynical as his about the Iraq War.

You're not cynical, Tim C.; merely astute. Recall the words of the great wit George Bernard Shaw:

The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it.

*************************************************************

"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it."

YES!!!

I have been looking for the origin of that exact quote, which I had clipped out of a newspaper in 1989, and posted on my ex-pollyanna-husband's desk, who had a lousy habit of referring to me as a cynic. He turned out to be a corporate company "boy" after attaining his MBA in 1990. Never served a day in his life, either. Too young for the Vietnam War, born in 1957. The only highlight of 1957 was Buddy Holly and "That'll Be The Day". I never cared much for those new fins on the Chevy Bel Air, either. Good riddance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing civilians for no apparent purpose?... If there is any other member of this Forum that believes that American soldiers are killing Iraqi civilians for no apparent reason let them rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne!!
Oh, yeah right, I forgot. We're in there to shove DEMOCRACY down their throats at all costs because it's the American way to deal with these rag heads and goat herders.
Where are the John F. Kennedy Democrats who supported his 1961 Inaugural promise that America would 'pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?'
I would have thought that a lot of young Democrats have died in Iraq on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex. A more relevant point is what price are warmongers like you paying.

I don't need to "rise in defense of Mr. Charles-Dunne" because my own views are at least as cynical as his about the Iraq War.

In 1968, when LBJ wanted nothing more than to finally end the war before going off to his haunted retirement, Nixon's election strategy involved conspiring to undermine the Paris Peace Talks. In 1980, during the Reagan/Bush election bid, there was a backdoor deal to undermine a resolution of the Iran hostage crisis. In 2004, the Republican Senate brazenly admittedly to delaying the investigation of the White House manipulation of the intelligence leading to the war until after the election, only to have them subsequently assert once the election was over that the issue no longer had revelation - since the election was over. And of course, everyone stonewalled the Plame treason (Poppy Bush's term) to get through the election.

For four years, every American life lost in Vietnam from 1969 to 1973 under Nixon was wasted; the final settlement was not materially different than the terms available at the beginning of the four years. Even worse, the Watergate corruption and resultant weakening of the government made the later agreement unsustainable. Meaning, for all of those lives lost, we turned a stalemate into a loss. And why? Because we wanted peace with honor. I'm still waiting to hear a single non-excusatory articulation of what honor there is in what Americans did, and what they died for there. As an expression of will, it failed.

After the Republican subterfuge leading up to the election in 1980, whaddya know! We started selling them sophisticated weaponry, paying ransom for hostages, and used the mark-up on the arms sales to fund Latin American attrocities in specific violation of American law. And most of us are aware that many of the Latin American Contra activities involved the same School of the Americas thugs trained up to take out Castro, and who possibly turned on JFK.

Now this current crowd relies for its power on a constant barrage of fearmongering, wrapped in the flag. But what honor is there in using White Phosphorus against civilian populations? How is it not an illegal occupation when, by democratic standards, the majority wants us out? We relied on an agent known to lack credibility named Curveball to take out the secular strongman dictator of a country with three distinct ethnic/religious factions, never considering that democracy is the worst thing that could happen there. The majority of Iraqis support the Shiite theocracy in Iran. We're not worried that if we "cut and run" there will be chaos and civil war; we're worried that Iraq will become Iran's by osmosis.

The use of Kennedy's "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty?" is obscenely disingenuously applied to the current circumstance. I know that the death of American soldiers is a minor consideration to some, but how is it that Kennedy navigated the most dangerous era in the history of humanity without any combat troops dying? Less than two hundred military personnel died during the entire course of his presidency, including training accidents and advisors in Vietnam. And most forget the value he placed on the incarcerated Bay of Pigs Cubans, whose ransom was greatly opposed by Republicans. Manuel Artime alone cost $500,000.

The lesson from Vietnam, the so-called Powell Doctrine (how does he live with what he's done?) is that you don't go into a military conflict without overpowering force and a clear Exit Strategy, along with a tenacious avoidance of mission creep. Absent all of these requirements, with no clearly defined mission or exit strategy, every life lost contributes to worse than nothing; it contributes to diminished respect and influence for America in the civilized world and diminishes civil rights and liberties domestically. MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED IN IRAQ THAN FROM ALL THE TERRORISM IN HISTORY.

T.C.

T.C.

Now that's a fine post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only highlight of 1957 was Buddy Holly and "That'll Be The Day". I never cared much for those new fins on the Chevy Bel Air, either.

I'm sorry, but I've just got to say that Terry has it all wrong! The '57 Chevy is deservedly a classic.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll, I agree...but only from an aesthetic viewpoint. Other than the Rochester fuel injection system, the '57 Chevy was hardly a marvel of engineering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only highlight of 1957 was Buddy Holly and "That'll Be The Day". I never cared much for those new fins on the Chevy Bel Air, either.

I'm sorry, but I've just got to say that Terry has it all wrong! The '57 Chevy is deservedly a classic.

T.C.

*********************************************************

Nah, come on, T.C., the grill work on the 55's, and the sleekness of the two-tone paint jobs on the 56's, especially the convertibles, were superb designing! And yes, T.C. I do acknowledge that the 57 is considered a classic by the auto mags, but that's because it took off from the art deco tail lights of the 55's and 56's, and gave it those radical fins, heralding in the style for the 60's designer autos and muscle cars. But, give me a 56' Bel-Air, two-toned blue convertible any day, with 3-speed on the column, of course. :ice

And, maybe a continental kit, too.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...