Jfk

antwheat

I am the Decider!
"I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which IGNORANCE too often abounds and the TRUTH too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time."

- John F. Kennedy
 

Cheeky1

Yae warsh wif' wutr
In the context you (jfk) describe, you can not force anyone to be at peace.

EDIT: you can show people a different way of life, and even to the extent to attempt to teach others, but the decision is ultimately up to them - not you.
 
Last edited:

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Jack had no clue at that moment in history just how many terrorists we would have to wipe out before that peace is achieved.

:coffee:
 

antwheat

I am the Decider!
In the context you (jfk) describe, you can not force anyone to be at peace.

EDIT: you can show people a different way of life, and even to the extent to attempt to teach others, but the decision is ultimately up to them - not you.

Uuhhh...that's the point. Peace cannot be "given" by force, but that's what America is trying to do, i.e. Pax Americana. Do some Roman history reading, specifically Pax Romana.
 

Cheeky1

Yae warsh wif' wutr
...Peace cannot be "given" by force, but that's what America is trying to do...

Ok.

However, I do not believe the U.S.'s goal is world peace. The ideal of "world peace" in itself is entirely political and idealogical. (such as - in the name of world peace....)

I agree. Peace can not be "given". However, the idea of choice and choosing - these can be revealed and "given" per se.
 

antwheat

I am the Decider!
Ok.

However, I do not believe the U.S.'s goal is world peace. The ideal of "world peace" in itself is entirely political and idealogical. (such as - in the name of world peace....)

I agree. Peace can not be "given". However, the idea of choice and choosing - these can be revealed and "given" per se.

You are getting caught up in the semantics. The US has over 800 military bases throughout the world. I'm talking about the US war machine that steps into other nations internal conflicts (as long as it is economical to them that is...hint Rwanda, Darfur) and projects its military presence in more than 150 countries.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
You are getting caught up in the semantics. The US has over 800 military bases throughout the world. s.

But how else would we help all our enemies achieve room temperature if we weren't spread out where our enemies are?
 

Mongo53

New Member
"I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which IGNORANCE too often abounds and the TRUTH too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time."

- John F. Kennedy
You mean the JFK that tried to force Pax Americana on poor little old Cuba? The same JFK that started the U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam Conflict?

You are getting caught up in the semantics. The US has over 800 military bases throughout the world. I'm talking about the US war machine that steps into other nations internal conflicts (as long as it is economical to them that is...hint Rwanda, Darfur) and projects its military presence in more than 150 countries.
Oh, now the way U.S. wages war is Economical? Not to get caught up with semantics, but how does that jibe with everyone on the left telling us that the economy is so bad because we waged 2 unfunded wars?

Funny, how Iraqi and Afghan Democracy and Government institutions look nothing like the U.S., and are closer to European Models. With the President being pretty much a figurehead for the Iraqi's and a different model for Afghanistan. Of course a couple of years ago, we were failing because we were trying to mold those nations into our identical image, which was refuted, and when it became apparent Iraqi's and Afghanistani's were molding a Democracy of their own making, then it was, we are failing because their Democracy looks nothing like our own.

Make your Carrot or a Stick argument, you've failed bitterly in your attempt to convince me that the U.S. attempts to confront Islamic Facism and Dictators destablizing entire strategic regions of the world was actaully a hidden attempt of Pax Americana Imperialism. Of course you have to laugh, as the people that made that claim, were the ones that have eon's long history of Imperalism that we confronted and ended in our sphere of the world, and only 2 generations ago, were liberated from their fellow nations imperalism, with us at the advatange of colonizing their nations, but instead spent our wealth rebuilding them and putting them back on their feet.

Yea, America's War Machine just steps into other nations internal conflicts, I guess in some Mercantile attempt of World Domination, you're a little hazy as too motive? BUT, after I have a Lobotomy and spend a decade with daily abuse of marijuana, I may be stupid enough to believe that.

Within the same sentence you ctricize us for intervening to much, but NOT intervening everywhere. Is thier an idealogy behind that, or just contrarianism?

Don't forget Burma that is begging for U.S. intervention to end years of a brutal regime there, or Somolia, oh wait, the U.S. propped up Ethopia actually intervened their to end the civilian strife, what, that can't be, it must have been a young nation practising their own Imperalism that they learned from big, bad U.S.A.:killingme
 
Last edited:

Cheeky1

Yae warsh wif' wutr
You are getting caught up in the semantics. The US has over 800 military bases throughout the world. I'm talking about the US war machine that steps into other nations internal conflicts (as long as it is economical to them that is...hint Rwanda, Darfur) and projects its military presence in more than 150 countries.

se·man·tics (s -m n t ks). n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb). 1. Linguistics The study or science of meaning in language.

If you want your message to be interpretted one definite way, the forum is the last place I would go for that. Reading and following the written word as it is(was) intended seems to be a weak point all over DC....

...you are going to need to be nitpicky about what you type and how you state it. If you leave holes in your statements where folks can interpret what you state in more than one way, replying to them "you are getting caught up in the semantics" is mearly affirming that I am maneuvering away from the path you would wish me to think. Just saying....:whistle:

...back on topic...

You are correct that the U.S. steps into other nation's internal conflicts. Though, at this time, isolationism is a stance the U.S. has not the luxury of taking. (Not that I agree with every decision the U.S. makes concerning foreign nations)
 
Last edited:

antwheat

I am the Decider!
Oh, now the way U.S. wages war is Economical? Not to get caught up with semantics, but how does that jibe with everyone on the left telling us that the economy is so bad because we waged 2 unfunded wars?
I really hope you don't think action against Libya is about democracy and not oil...

Within the same sentence you ctricize us for intervening to much, but NOT intervening everywhere. Is thier an idealogy behind that, or just contrarianism?
Uuhhh no...what were you reading? I was stating the the US mostly intervenes when it is most profitable, no hidden agenda there even though you are trying to find one.

I would respond to more, but most of what you posted was a rant and of little importance. In case you missed the point I'll make it simple. The US does not need to intervene in internal conflicts... We do not need 250,000 military troops stationed throughout the world... We do not need more than 800 bases throughout the world.
 

antwheat

I am the Decider!
se·man·tics (s -m n t ks). n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb). 1. Linguistics The study or science of meaning in language.

If you want your message to be interpretted one definite way, the forum is the last place I would go for that. Reading and following the written word as it is(was) intended seems to be a weak point all over DC....

...you are going to need to be nitpicky about what you type and how you state it. If you leave holes in your statements where folks can interpret what you state in more than one way, replying to them "you are getting caught up in the semantics" is mearly affirming that I am maneuvering away from the path you would wish me to think. Just saying....:whistle:

Figure of speech - A figure of speech is a use of a word diverging from its usual meaning, or a special repetition, arrangement or omission of words with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it, such as a metaphor, simile, hyperbole, or personification. Figures of speech often provide emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer from their use, as any figure of speech introduces an ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation. A figure of speech is sometimes called a rhetoric or a locution.

Please use your English Bachelors in a 9th grade class room...

You are correct that the U.S. steps into other nation's internal conflicts. Though, at this time, isolationism is a stance the U.S. has not the luxury of taking. (Not that I agree with every decision the U.S. makes concerning foreign nations)

And why do you believe that?
 

Mongo53

New Member
I really hope you don't think action against Libya is about democracy and not oil...
:killingme:killingme:killingme

O...M...G...., the hard left would rather abandon their savior Obama, and claim he betrayed them, then admitt that the decisions they Obama and Bush made were the results of well reasoned examination of the circumstances and the responsible thing to do.

Can you say, Idealogue?

Uuhhh no...what were you reading? I was stating the the US mostly intervenes when it is most profitable, no hidden agenda there even though you are trying to find one.

I would respond to more, but most of what you posted was a rant and of little importance. In case you missed the point I'll make it simple. The US does not need to intervene in internal conflicts... We do not need 250,000 military troops stationed throughout the world... We do not need more than 800 bases throughout the world.
So the U.S. fights wars for profit, then the next day the left will claim the Economy is bad because of the unfunded wars we are fighting.

We are the profits from the Wars the U.S. fights? Where is the oil that we went to war to get?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I really hope you don't think action against Libya is about democracy and not oil...d.

Gotta keep that oil flowing. I've already made lots of summer travel plans and the last thing I need is an unexpected increase in gas prices. Jeez.
 

antwheat

I am the Decider!
:killingme:killingme:killingme

O...M...G...., the hard left would rather abandon their savior Obama, and claim he betrayed them, then admitt that the decisions they Obama and Bush made were the results of well reasoned examination of the circumstances and the responsible thing to do.

Can you say, Idealogue?
I have no clue why you would think I'm "hard left"..... Try hard north.


:So the U.S. fights wars for profit, then the next day the left will claim the Economy is bad because of the unfunded wars we are fighting.

We are the profits from the Wars the U.S. fights? Where is the oil that we went to war to get?
Wow...it must be difficult for you to read...

There are no profits from war... We didn't fire on Libya to run in and steal some oil, what kind of idiotic thought is that? The spice must flow... Again, missing the point...
 

ImnoMensa

New Member
[\
Jack Kennedy came an inch from giving us all peace the peace of the aftermath of a nuclear war.

jack spoke some fine words he had a good writer.

Ask the guys he left hanging at the Bay of Pigs what they think of Good Old Jack.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
[\
Jack Kennedy came an inch from giving us all peace the peace of the aftermath of a nuclear war.

jack spoke some fine words he had a good writer.

Ask the guys he left hanging at the Bay of Pigs what they think of Good Old Jack.

My great uncle (still alive..spent time visiting with him last year) flew attack air for that failed mission. He's not a JFK supporter to this day...suffice to say.
 

Mongo53

New Member
I have no clue why you would think I'm "hard left"..... Try hard north.
:killingme It was all the Leftist Rhetoric that fooled me.:howdy:
Wow...it must be difficult for you to read...

There are no profits from war... We didn't fire on Libya to run in and steal some oil, what kind of idiotic thought is that? The spice must flow... Again, missing the point...
Oh, I see, the U.S. does protect its interests, like every other Nation in the World, BUT unlike many Nations in the world, it tries to balance its interests with the interests of others, fairness, justice and do the right thing and NOT the imperialist thing.

Yea, I don't know how I missed that with your detailed description of your idealogy, which was, oh let me quote it;

antwheat said:
...the US mostly intervenes when it is most profitable...

Yea, how could anyone misinterpret that?

The U.S. is often pragmantic in its foreign affairs, in an attempt to NOT force their view on others AND/OR to simply promote as much stability as possible improve things incrementally with a carrot over a stick OR pragmatism in the face of things becoming much worse in an area. To often people ignore that, oversimplify and claim America is doing the oppossite. Usually to push a political agenda, i.e. they demagogue America for their own gain.
 

antwheat

I am the Decider!
:killingme It was all the Leftist Rhetoric that fooled me.:howdy:

Well now you know and don't have to assume... Now you're:killingme:...

Oh, I see, the U.S. does protect its interests, like every other Nation in the World, BUT unlike many Nations in the world, it tries to balance its interests with the interests of others, fairness, justice and do the right thing and NOT the imperialist thing.

What would be "fair and just" would be to let people sort out their own problems...

Yea, I don't know how I missed that with your detailed description of your idealogy, which was, oh let me quote it;

Yea, how could anyone misinterpret that?

You realize this is a forum right? I could post 20+ pages about this for you to read, but I figured I'd summarize it...


The U.S. is often pragmantic in its foreign affairs, in an attempt to NOT force their view on others AND/OR to simply promote as much stability as possible improve things incrementally with a carrot over a stick OR pragmatism in the face of things becoming much worse in an area.

Yep, promoting stability with tomahawks... That sure isn't "forcing" any views.
 
Top