Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWith President Obama announcing his new strategy for US/NATO escalation in Afghanistan, the April 3-4 NATO Summit in Baden-Baden and Kehl, Germany, and in Strasbourg, France, takes on added urgency -- as will the demonstrations by thousands of protestors from over 20 European countries and the US.
Member states will attempt to use the summit as an occasion to celebrate the alliance's 60th anniversary, France's return to NATO, and perhaps offer a new "Strategic Concept" as an interventionist force around the world. Activists will articulate an alternative vision focused on securing global peace and confronting domestic challenges at home, including a call for the dissolution of NATO.
Beginning April 1, a diverse coalition of activists will participate in training camps, demonstrations, conferences, workshops, and non-violent blockades. At a moment when international cooperation on economic and human security interests is needed more than ever, the protestors view a US-led, expansionist NATO as destabilizing and dangerous. What was originally designed as a defense alliance against the Warsaw Pact has taken on a very different post-Cold War, global interventionist role.
Activists see a NATO with bases on every continent; a military force that organizers say accounts for more than 75 percent of global military expenditures and drains resources that might otherwise address needs like education, job creation, and poverty; "out of area" operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, the Mediterranean Sea, and a training mission in Iraq; a destabilizing presence pushing a "missile defense" system, ignoring international law, expanding to Russia's doorstep, and maintaining a first-strike option -- all fueling a renewed arms race. (Recently, popular opposition to the proposed Czech-based radar system for US missile defense was a key factor in bringing down the ruling government there. Peace activist Jan Tamas led a hunger strike that galvanized opposition and he will be speaking at the "counter summit" in Strasbourg.)
Elsa Rassbach, a US citizen and filmmaker who has lived much of the time in Berlin since the mid-1990s, is a member of the International Coordinating Committee that is planning many of the activities of this broad coalition. She said that the need to respond to the occasion of NATO's 60th anniversary has brought "a lot of different strands" together to collaborate since last June. "For example," she said, "in the German peace movement -- not only the large peace organizations and some Members of the German Parliament, but also smaller groups concerned about military bases used to conduct US/NATO wars, people concerned about atomic weapons…the social movements -- the fact that militarization is costing too much. German youth and people concerned with soldier resistance and conscientious objector issues…. We're bringing disparate movements and organizations together -- both large and small -- for the NATO action."
Participants will include national and international groups representing the peace, human rights and anti-globalization movements, as well as students and youth groups. Also represented are trade unions, parliamentary Left and Green parties, and Attac. In all, 600 organizations from 33 countries -- including Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Georgia, Brazil, Guinea, the Philippines and Turkey -- have endorsed the campaign's "No to War, No to NATO" appeal.
US participants include United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), Code Pink, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Iraq Veterans against the War (IVAW), Peace Action, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and others.
Perhaps no issue will be more prominent at the Summit and the protests than the War in Afghanistan and Pakistan. EU and NATO troops and resources are key to President Obama's new plan for escalation, and most Europeans are strongly opposed to the war (though many favor humanitarian aid, reconstruction projects, etc.) In Germany, for example, surveys suggest opposition as high as 70 percent.
Andreas Speck, member of the International Coordination Committee, and also the War Resisters' International which is participating in non-violent, civil disobedience, said: "This Summit is really important to NATO for taking its next step in becoming a global intervention force -- obviously, NATO's operation in Afghanistan will be an important topic. We want to show that Afghanistan is no better than Iraq -- it's a war that is not justified and we are completely opposed to this military operation."
Rassbach agreed. "We want Americans to understand that the reason this opposition to NATO is emerging is that NATO -- originally supposed to be a defensive alliance -- is being converted into a very aggressive force to intervene around the world, and Afghanistan is a prime example," she said. "Afghanistan is a key test for the ‘out of area' intervention concept."
The current schedule calls for: a camp near Strasbourg April 1-5; a conference on NATO and Human Rights on April 1; a hearing on the War in Afghanistan in Karlsruhe, Germany on April 2; a congress/counter summit of leading intellectuals, activists, and representatives of European political parties in Strasbourg on April 3 and April 5; actions in Baden-Baden on April 3 in conjunction with German Chancellor Merkel's dinner for the heads of state; and also on the morning of April 4 in Strasbourg when a photo-op is scheduled at the pedestrian bridge Passerelle des deux Rives, and the NATO Summit begins in the Palais De La Musique Et Des Congres; the climactic international demonstration in Strasbourg on the afternoon of April 4.
The organizing challenges are enormous.
Just for the civil disobedience coalition -- "Block NATO", which is smaller than the broader coalition -- Speck said there will be thousands of people coming in from Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Britain "and a few other countries."
"It's a big challenge for us in terms of communication -- during the actions, the trainings, and the conference" he said. "Because we will need translation for a lot of these things."
The coalition has also reached out to the French police to let them know they will be protesting non-violently. They will meet with them on the morning of April 1.
"We fear that the police will not act non-violently against us, so we want them to know that there's no threat from our side," Speck said. "The problem is we never know what the police will do and also if they will use agent provocateurs to create the images that they want."
Perhaps even more pressing is the proposed route for the larger demonstration. The French authorities have relegated it to the outskirts far from the cordoned off Strasbourg city center where the Summit will be held. (The security within the city is extreme and controversial. The French court is currently hearing complaints from residents who are already being asked by police to take down peace flags hanging from their balconies, and who will be forced to wear badges during the summit to move about the city.) Under French law, there are no opportunities to appeal the demonstration route but organizers continue to press their case.
"Nobody's demanding that we demonstrate very close to the Summit, just something reasonably close," Speck said. "My fear is that if it's very far out then people will not accept this.… And maybe that's what [the authorities] want -- a confrontation. Because then you have people upset, trying to make their way to the center of the city, and that will give the police the opportunity to provoke some violent confrontation. I hope that's not going to happen, we don't want this to happen."
(Speck said people in the US can help by writing the French Embassy and speaking out against this infringement on the human right to freedom of expression and assembly.)
Of course, there will be no such negotiations regarding time and place for acts of civil disobedience. "The aim is… to effectively blockade the NATO summit venue basically with our bodies... And to obstruct the functioning of the summit by cutting off the leaders from the infrastructure that they need. There will be no material-blockades or actions which, for example, attack the police."
Joanne Landy, co-director of the Campaign for Peace and Democracyin the US, said these events and the fervor surrounding them are something the US should be paying attention to. "NATO is very much part and parcel to how the US tries to marshal other countries to do some of the heavy-lifting for an imperial policy," she said. "This imperial policy is catastrophic for us…. it completely distorts our resources, and it's just fundamentally the wrong relationship to have with the rest of the world. I would like to have a world in which we could actually be in solidarity with labor movements and women's movements and so forth. But right now whatever the US does is suspect and for good reason. So you really need a very different foreign policy all together in which the military wouldn't play the role that it does now, and where the US could really support the needs of ordinary people everywhere."
"American activists can see this anti-NATO protest as how Europe is protesting the Afghanistan War," Rassbach said. "But it's also more than that. It's against all the military costs and the military bases in Europe and NATO's nuclear first-strike policy that includes the proposed missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Cold War is over, so why should NATO continue?"
There is another important achievement here that the American peace movement is working towards as well.
"For many people it's new to work in such a broad coalition," Speck said. "Sometimes there is quite a bit of tension in the international committee. But on the other hand, everyone wants to work together, with our differences, to counter what NATO is doing, what the EU is doing, and all the militarization that we see going on…. That's what our work in diverse movements is about, to deal with the differences. We want to create a much more diverse and democratic society so we need to learn to live with these kinds of differences."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I think that, in the Obama administration, we are really seeing the reality of "bipartisan" consensus on certain fundamental topics. The reality is that elite interest and Washington DC are unified when it comes to using the power of the government to enhance the wealth of the richest few, at the sacrifice of the wealth of the many, and when it comes to using the international military and strategic capabilities of the US in the playing of a Great Game, at the cost of a strategically sound and humanist, populist foreign policy.
Certainly, the continued gamesmanship via NATO, which the Obama administration seems engage in the same as any other presidential administration, is a part of the latter.
Posted by syfriendly at 03/30/2009 @ 8:46pm
How many Americans are heading off to France in the spring to hang and like demonstrate, do a little outrage, take in some sites? Sounds like a party but I am curious, who are these folks? How exactly do they afford this, how often can they afford this, who's watching the cat?
Also, you gotta just love anything like this that casts Obama as the ol' guard centrist, along with the continued ranting of neocon loonies like Rush diss'n New York, Coulter and anything she says forever and ever - soon we'll have tweets as Palin clubs baby seals.
All this makes the MSM and God Bless the USA'rs, fans of Billy Ray, and Barbara 'they're better off after Katrina' Bush have just a little bit of trouble with the Obama=redistributionist in chief tag.
Posted by winyahn at 03/30/2009 @ 9:47pm
wow...
8 years of satano-aynrando outright rule, after 2 to 3 decades of satano-aynrando ascendancy, and all the world now realizes the united states is ultimately no different from any other empire that has ever existed...
flawed.
but look at how the world viewed us before the last 8 years and now.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/30/2009 @ 9:57pm
"The reality is that elite interest and Washington DC are unified when it comes to using the power of the government to enhance the wealth of the richest few"
Posted by syfriendly at 03/30/2009 @ 8:46pm
While the people are split.
Posted by V at 03/30/2009 @ 9:59pm
Beginning April 1, a diverse coalition of activists will participate in training camps, demonstrations, conferences, workshops, and non-violent blockades. (Al Quaeda Lite?)
Hmmm...sounds more like domestic terrorism spreading out its tenacles! Soviets will be BIG contributors on this one replentant with thousands of their imbedded agents..uhhhh...followers!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 11:26pm
NATO has been a tool of the US imperialism since its very foundation.it´s important not to forget that NATO was here earlier than the Warsaw pact, whose creation was a reaction to NATO and not vice versa!
Posted by aada83 at 03/31/2009 @ 05:18am
Thanks for the very encouraging post, Katrina.
Speaking of potential foment for critically needed change, Paul Krugman is on the cover of the latest Newsweek. Although I've loved so much of what Krugman has been able to accomplish in the way of encouraging critical thinking since he started writing for the NY Times a decade ago (how the time flies), I've also been just a tad skeptical of what his personal aims might be. For example, I saw him on CSPAN at the Miami Book Fair a year or two ago giving a point blank denial to a questioner on the issue of America as an imperial presence on the globe. Pretty disingenuous I'd say, but I suppose it helps to usefully deflect some of the heat that he gets from the establishment at the Times and elsewhere.
In any case, the Krugman cover story is a timely one and I dearly hope that it might assist in building some heat to be applied to Obama's horrible policy on Big Bank bailouts. It doesn't hurt that Paul Krugman himself is such an interesting, thoughtful and brilliant guy who has made a name for himself within the media establiment as a provoker and a disturber of the status quo.
And hey, he credits Asimov as his critical influence. You gotta love that.
www.newsweek.com/id/191393
Fun excerpt:
A longtime mentor, MIT Nobel laureate Robert Solow, who taught Krugman as a grad student, remembers him as "very unassertive, mild-mannered. One thing he still has is a smile that plays around his face when he's talking, almost like he's looking at himself and thinking, 'What am I doing here?' " But, Solow added, "when he started writing his column, his personality adapted to it.".......
He describes himself as a "born pessimist" and a "natural rebel." But he adds, "What I have is a voice." That he does.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/31/2009 @ 07:39am
"Soviets will be BIG contributors on this one replentant with thousands of their imbedded agents..uhhhh...followers!"--------Posted by comancheamerican at 03/30/2009 @ 11:26pm
The "Soviets"?!??!?
RIO, what year is it where you are??? Are you beaming your blog posts through a temporal wormhole?
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 07:59am
~Posted by Maskot at "7:59"am
Hey, here's an idea.
Maybe if we could all agree to simply ignore the buffoon he might eventually leave. Just a thought. You're here all the time, Maskot, so you could spread the word.
Of course, then we'd lose the joy of watching the idiot continually slap himself in the face with virtually every post.
It's a price I'd be willing to pay.
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/31/2009 @ 08:07am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/31/2009 @ 08:07am
Oh, no...RIO's too much fun to ignore. He's not just mentally deficient and ranting (like any of the libzsuk variants)....he actually CONTRADICTS himself on a continual basis.
Plus, I'm still waiting to hear his "escape plan" for when Obama and the Democrats impose their totalitarian socialist dictatorship!
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 08:51am
US participants include United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), Code Pink, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Iraq Veterans against the War (IVAW), Peace Action, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and others.
No surprise that the usual marxist groups will all be there.
I wonder when they and Katrina will start their protests of the recent Russian military expansionism
"Russia plans to build more than six multipurpose nuclear-powered submarines with long-range cruise missiles, Russian media say.
A source in the Defense Ministry said at least six nuclear-powered submarines of the new fourth generation Graney-class will be build at the Sevmash military naval yard in Severodvinsk city, Itar-Tass reported.
He added that the first of the six atomic submarines -- the Severodvinsk -- is expected to join the Russian navy in 2011 and that the construction of the other five atomic submarines will be finished by 2017."
The Severodvinsk will be quipped with long-range cruise missiles potentially capable of carrying low-capacity tactical warheads. On March 20, First Deputy Chief of the Navy's General Staff Vice-Admiral Oleg Burtsev announced Russia's decision to finance the construction of a new multipurpose nuclear submarine equipped with cruise missiles of an increased range.
He said the role of tactical nuclear weapons in the Russian navy may grow, highlighting the significance of increasing range and precision of tactical nuclear weapons as an important asset."
http://tinyurl.com/d3nbjp
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:03am
Well what do you expect the Ruskis to do, Anti?
Make solar-powered tofu spinners?
They've got a recession to spend their way out of too.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 09:18am
But the hypocrisy is Katrina and the protesters apparently have no problem with a military buildup by Mother Russia.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:29am
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:29am
You forgot to mention how the Cold War is back (even though Reagan won it) and them and the Chinese are now "Maoist capitalist hybrids"!
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 09:38am
You forgot to mention how the Cold War is back (even though Reagan won it) and them and the Chinese are now "Maoist capitalist hybrids"!
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 09:38am
That part is obvious. The Russians and Chinese are both rapidly expanding their militaries.
or are you going to somehow deny those facts?
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:46am
Katrina vanden Heuvel's article, and the described actions of all the peace activists, is essentially the "same old same old"
As is always the case, it is the one sided demand for peace.
There is NO consideration AT ALL about the actions or plans of our potential enemies.
Once again, as always, it is the actions that WE are supposed to take to lay down our weapons in the pursuit of peace.
Not overtly stated, but obviously implied, is the thought process that war and unpleasant conflicts in the world in the past (or many that could occur in the future) were either our fault to begin with, created by our militarism, or can be prevented in the future if we just show the world that we are serious about peace and we mean people no harm.
This is like a broken record, over and over again....
But I have figured it out, finally, why this is happening.
What would have seemed to be a totally different subject is in play here.... the debate about things like the potential for human cloning....
But apparently cloning was figured out and perfected long time ago....
And Katrina vanden Heuvel, and other peace activists, whether they be Cindy Sheehan or Dennis Kucinich or all the others, all the lib editors and contributors and bloggers on The Nation website, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, Democrat Underground, international A.N.S.W.E.R., etc etc.................
Are all clones of former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
Where is Winston Churchill... we need him desperately now.... More clones of Chuchill... less of Chamberlain.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 10:05am
To begin, the Chinese need to be more transparent in budgeting, the report says. The People's Liberation Army budget has more than doubled since 2000 -- from $27.9 billion to $60.1 billion. Officials believe the Chinese are underreporting the amount they spend on security. The real budget in 2008 is probably between $105 billion and $150 billion, they said.
Chinese military capabilities have increased tremendously. People's Liberation Army officials have invested in the acquisition of advanced foreign weapons, and they have fueled hothouse growth in domestic defense industries. The Chinese military also has poured money into research and development. On top of this, there is a far-reaching organizational and doctrinal reform of the People's Liberation Army.
"China's ability to sustain military power at a distance remains limited, but its armed forces continue to develop and field disruptive military technologies, including those for anti-access/area-denial, as well as for nuclear, space and cyber warfare, that are changing regional military balances and that have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region," the report says.
China continues to put military pressure on Taiwan. "China's armed forces are rapidly developing coercive capabilities for the purpose of deterring Taiwan's pursuit of de jure independence," the report says. More advanced missiles, more equipment and better-trained troops have deployed to the military regions opposite the island. The military balance in the region continues to shift in Beijing's favor, the report says, and Taiwan no longer enjoys "air dominance" over the Taiwan Straits.
http://tinyurl.com/cvmu4j
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 10:07am
Let's go Nato, Nato Let's go! I like NATO
Posted by abell12ct at 03/31/2009 @ 10:19am
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:46am
Of course, completely obvious that the Cold War is back on....despite The Gipper's "Mission Accomplished"!
Oh, and despite appearances, they're still Commies!
Also we might want to look into that flouride in the water thing again!
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 10:23am
Of course, completely obvious that the Cold War is back on....despite The Gipper's "Mission Accomplished"!
Oh, and despite appearances, they're still Commies!
Also we might want to look into that flouride in the water thing again!
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 10:23am
The Chinese never stopped and while the Soviet empire is gone, Russia has found a way to resurrect it's expansionist goals because of Putin.
Reagan did defeat the Soviets..that is not disputable.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 10:33am
antisocialist,
You say, because it is true, ".....Reagan did defeat the Soviets..that is not disputable...."
But, by golly, libs try anyway.
The basic theme is that the same libs who preached the same stuff in the 50's, 60's and 70's that Katrina is preaching up above were saying back then that the continued existence of the Soviet Union was reality and that the smart and prudent thing was to realize this and go for peaceful co-existence and cooperation and mutual understanding,etc. etc..
With a smaller subset of them saying "Who are we to judge anyway" as they pointed out wrongs (as they saw it) about America and things about the Soviet system they liked.
And with Jimmy Carter lecturing us that we needed to get over our "inordinate fear of communism"
But then, when the Soviet system was gone, they all either lionized Gorbachev and said he was the total reason why, or they said that the collapse of the Soviet system was inevitible, or some combination of the two.... in a complete 180 degree turn from what they promoted before the late 80's and early 90's.
What is obvious about all this is that Libs think people who are not lib are stupid. We know for a fact that our glorious President, Barcak Obama, has disdain for and looks down upon the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and probably the rest of America (excepting libs) as well.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 10:48am
Katrina vanden Heuvel is a gigantic hypocrite and so is The Nation. How dare you try to fool us now with this antiwar talk, when you supported Obama knowing fully well of his hawkish plans?
You knew Obama was a Bush clone and his lies about ending the war during the campaign would be exposed during his first 100 minutes in office, forget 100 days.
Media sellouts like The Nation, and all of you Obama supporters, should be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by truth_is_xtreme at 03/31/2009 @ 11:15am
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 10:33am
But Larry, except for the WORD "Soviet"...
you're saying Russia is back to its old tricks, right?
So by your own view, the only thing Ronnie did was...forced them to change names!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 11:26am
snowball666,
Mr. Peanut could run a nuclear reactor. He has no concept whatsoever about economics, or international affairs, and he is also a virulent anti-Semite as well. (probably should leave that part out because now here comes CripThink, and syfriendly, et. al. with their venomus garbage).
But Mr. Peanut keeps trying for involvement in international issues anyway, even though probably the presidents that have been in his own party wish he would not.
And Mr. Peanut keeps preaching and sanctimoniously instructing us, despite the fact that all he has ever done or advocated in the way of economics or international affairs (excepting the Egypt-Israel peace treaty where credit goes to Anwar Sadat for breaking from the Arab mold) is wrong now or has been proven wrong.
So you ask can I give credit to him. For what?
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 11:40am
snowball666,
Carter is demonized because he can't keep his mouth shut when he doesn't know what he is talking about, and he can not keep himself from intejecting into things he knows nothing about or has the wrong ideas about.
If, after he was no longer President, he had just stuck to doing charity work with Habitat for Humanity and as a Lion and in other ways, he would have rehabilitated his image and he would probably be highly thought of by people who had been in opposition to him when he was President, and respected and admired.
But instead, Mr. Peanut went and did things like lobbying foreign governments to oppose our country when we were trying to put the coalition together in the early 90's to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, and where PM Brian Mulroney of Canada found out about this and called our government and asked what Carter was up to.
But it wasn't quite that way - almost certainly Mr. Mulroney asked "what the ... is Carter up to?"
When a foreign leader is asking our government a question about a former President of ours regarding activities the former President is conducting and our government knows nothing about - including the f-word in the question -- that is not a good statement about what Mr. Mulroney thought about Mr. Carter, is it?
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 12:03pm
I know the 'Goober' wasn't our best president, but I do think he is demonized well beyond what he deserves.-----Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 11:51am
Nearly 30 years out of office, Carter is the last real "boogeyman" they have left, snow.
Think about it. Aside from attacking his sex life, to bring up CLINTON would mean bringing up ...peace....prosperity...budget surplues...and a TWO TERM DEMOCRAT as President under those circumstances.
How do you sell "Dems are bad"...especially when his (Clinton's) successor took away...peace...prosperity...and budget surpluses?
Ergo, they reach back in the old playbook and pull up Jimmy Carter.
The problem they face is one of demographics. Eventually you're going to get enough younger people who can't remember Carter's four years in office and his failings....and their memory of a Democrat in the White House will be Clinton and the good times of the 90s.
and their memory of a Republican in the White House won't be Reagan...but Dubya!
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 12:10pm
Mask,
Did you forget how Clinton loathed and weakened the military?
You have also forgotten how Clinton allowed Loral Space to sell missile technology to the communist Chinese, technology that was usually prohibited to sell, but allowed with a presidential waiver.... that gives the Chinese the capability for their missles to reach our West Coast... not possible before.
And you have forgotten I am sure how the CEO of Loral was a campaign contributor and backer and supporter of Clinton.
And I am sure, too, that you have forgotten that this knowledge (about the CEO of Loral) was not from talk radio but information to Loral employees through company communication, and thus was true.
And you of course forgot Jamie Gorelick's wall that lessened or made impossible our ability to connect any "dots" prior to 9/11.
So the memory of Clinton is not so good after all, is it? More like a nightmare.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 12:19pm
Reagan did defeat the Soviets..that is not disputable.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 10:33am
You make it sound like it was Reagan who singlehandedly defeated the soviets... That is incredably simple minded. I would never say Reagan was not instrumental, but to claim that Reagan defeated the USSR is a gross over simplification. The Soviet economy collapsed in part due to the Saudi's dropping the price of oil to levels where the soviets could not sell theirs, in part due to the social changes Gorbachev was making (peristroika, and glasnost), the war in Afghanistan, and of course negotiations with Regan our continued military pressure etc, not to mention just the internal failure of communism. Reagan played an important role, but he also had good timing.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 12:51pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 12:19pm
Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 12:20pm
Sorry, boys. Not the Limbaugh updates of the Right, nor the disappointments of the Hard Left belay the fact that most of America remembers when we actually arrested the terrorists to attacked us (unlike Bush and bin Laden)....
millions of new jobs created...
and SOME KIND of budget surpluses (snow).
While Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan fade into history, the memories are going to be of that (under Clinton)....and wars, recession, and deficits that went to foreign adventures and Jack Abramoff (under Dubya).
Citing "Do you want to go back to the Jimmy Carter years?" (or even citing Reagan) is going to be as passe' as saying "Do you want to go back to the Calvin Coolidget days?"
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 12:55pm
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 12:51pm
It's political canonization, Extra.
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 12:58pm
Extraneous,
Gorbachev only came to power because of the pressure the United States (under President Ronald Reagan) was exerting.
Their leaders had begun to die off quickly.
Breznev, then Andropov, then Chernenko.
The powers-to-be were looking for somebody younger, but not necessarily somebody who was going to have the "peristroika" or "glastnost".
The pressure required them to turn to Gorbachev even though they probably would rather not have.
And even the selection of Gorbachev was not a done deal, not a unanimous slam dunk. Many (among whoever it was that made those decisions) favored others than Gorbachev who were more hard line.
Gorbachev was a narrow choice, and certainly Gorbachev did not advocate or seek the end of the Soviet Union. He only sought to modernize or open up the communism, something that is not possible.
He did not realize when you begin to open things up, the people will get a taste of freedom and throw the communism down the toilet, where it belonged.
So you have to consider why Gorbachev came to power to begin with. In other words, when citing Gorbachev as having played a part in the eventual end of the Soviet Union, you need to remember why Gorbachev came to power and whose actions brought that about. That would be Ronald Reagan.
(P.S., unfortunately the Chinese communists have "learned" from this, but in a different way. They have gotten rid of their economic communism, but have kept the rigid political communism in place)
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 1:40pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 1:40pm
Plus, Reagan cured polio, landed on the Moon, and killed him a bar, when he was only three....
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 1:55pm
Mask,
Ronald Reagan defeating the Soviets was enough.
Jonas Salk cured polio, not Ronald Reagan.
Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Pete Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, Dave Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charlie Duke, Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt landed on the moon, not Ronald Reagan.
I doubt Ronald Reagan killed himself a "bar" (bear) when he was only three. The people who are killing Bears nowadays are typically the Bears themselves, you have to go back (unfortunately) to January 1986 to find a time when the Bears were not "killed" - when they beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 3:43pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 3:43pm
You never read this, did ya?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 3:58pm
you need to remember why Gorbachev came to power and whose actions brought that about. That would be Ronald Reagan.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 1:40pm
I have no idea what you are talking about. Reagan IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for bringing Gorbachev to power. Reagan was more responsible for bringing Osama Bin Laden to power than Gorbachev. With the US funding of the Mujahideen in their battle against the Soviets, he assisted in the training and development of Bin Laden.
But the ascendancy to power by Gorbachev is no more related to Reagan then it was to Margaret Thatcher or any of the other countries pressuring the USSR, or the years of economic sanctions, the failing war in Afghanistan, the saudi's dropping the value of oil, etc. I would credit Harry Truman policies of containment more than I would for anything Reagan did. The reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union are multifaceted, just because Reagan was there at the end should not diminish the efforts of all those who came before him. Implying that it was Reagan alone is simpleminded. It would be like saying General Patton won the war in Europe, yes he played a major role, but the war could not have been won on his actions alone.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 4:07pm
So?
Where are the solutions? Suggestions? Alternative. Micro-views and tired, 30 year old tactics are shopworn, bleating whines when we find ourselves in a 21st century world where the social, political, and economic paradigms have seismically shifted.
It's heartbreaking, no tragic, to see how much the management of GM and The Nation have in common.
Posted by youvegottobekidding at 03/31/2009 @ 4:32pm
I wrote a letter to the White House yesterday...I think NATO is a rotting carcass of a treaty. I want out of it. I want our soldiers removed from all Nato bases etc. I think in this new world order our natural allies are the Chinese and the Japanese and yes the Russians. Most of Europe is a sink hole for American treasure.
Posted by sstjames at 03/31/2009 @ 4:36pm
I agree Reagan had nothing to do with the rise of Gorbachev. Gorbachev was a great man, but he decided communism needed to be reformed. He was brave enough to make those reforms, despite strong opposition. He was a great man - don't take away his greatness by giving credit to someone else.
In terms of NATO, I am a liberal who thinks it should not be disbanded. It still has a valuable role to play - the western world still has common interests, such as Afghanistan (the fight against anti-western terrorism), etc.
Posted by FDR43 at 03/31/2009 @ 4:37pm
Or NATO peacekeeping ops in places like the foremer Yugoslavia.
Posted by FDR43 at 03/31/2009 @ 4:38pm
Mask,
I have read "it" now.
It proves no point by you on the left, and a sentence in it is one Extraneous ought to read.
As with any other President, Ronald Reagan did not accomplish everything he set out to do, and made some comprimises along the way, and had to deal with political realities.
The article, written by a person who appears to sympathize with the political left, seems to be to "prove" that Ronald Reagan was not the strict conservative that some on the Right portray him to be.
But you seem to overlook that the more you try to "prove" that, then you are disproving at the same time the contentions by many on the Left that he was some kind of "right wing" "ogre" or "monster".
You seem to gloat that Reagan raised taxes at times... the article discusses that, saying "....Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them."
But then, on another subject than Ronald Reagan, why do some on the left hail Bill Clinton for welfare reform, given that he did not really want that and was forced to do that by a Republican congress. I only mention that because you on the left love to credit Slick Willie for something he was forced to do, yet you try and use raising taxes by Ronald Reagan as a mark against him.
The bottom line is that President Reagan moved conservative principles forward, for the good of the country. Your weighty analysis that you provide is just attempts by you on the left to prove something to yourselves.
I guess if you attempt to prove Reagan was not a successful Conservative than you think you are disproving what Conservatives say on these threads.. but Reagan promoted Conservatism better than any other Republican in recent times.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 4:42pm
But Larry, except for the WORD "Soviet"...
you're saying Russia is back to its old tricks, right?
So by your own view, the only thing Ronnie did was...forced them to change names!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 11:26am
Wrong. Are the Eastern Bloc countries and East Germany still under Russian oppression?
Or are there strong independent nations now in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and of course East Germany?
The coming battles will not resemble those of the 60's or 70's. Although we could again see Russian subs patrolling off of our coasts. We could see mother ships that launch hundreds of small fishing boats loaded with jamming devices, sonar, and radar, wreaking havoc on our naval vessels off of Block Island.
We could see another Scorpion go down off the Azores.
We could see the Russian fleet patrolling off of the Florida coast to back up Fidel.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 4:43pm
Mask and Extraneous,
I ran out of room above, I also wanted to include the following out of YOUR article:
"....After a defense buildup that pushed the Soviets to the verge of economic collapse, this shift, augmented by a reduction in U.S. military spending in the latter years of his presidency, strengthened Gorbachev's ability to proceed with reform in the Soviet Union, and set the stage for George H.W. Bush to oversee a peaceful end to the Cold War..."
The defense buildup took place because President Reagan initiated it. YOUR article, Mask, proves Extraneous wrong.
Without the U.S. defense build up, after Chernenko died, the Soviets would have most likely gone with a younger hard-liner rather than Gorbachev... there would have been no economic pressure to have to deal with, thus no need to turn to someone like Gorbachev who might loosen things up in other ways that the hard liners no doubt did not want...I told Extraneous up above that the selection of Gorbachev was close and the hard liners opposed him in favor of someone else.....
It is blatantly obvious that Ronald Reagan brought this about... the defense buildup that created economic pressure on the Soviets that caused them to turn to Gorbachev when hard liners would rather have had someone else.
I don't know what part of this Extraneous does not understand... what is Extraneous' problem that the blatantly obvious is not understood.
Must be the liberal ideology blocking logic and common sense.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 4:49pm
Give it up NATO! Now nothing more than a containment group of increasingly hesitant Christian nations.
A world without NATO, Warsaw Pact, Henry Kissinger--that's a great world.
Posted by hkaplan at 03/31/2009 @ 4:50pm
Mask's hero-Bill Clinton
3 Dec, 1969:
Dear Col. Holmes,
I'm sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say.
As you know I worked for two years in a very minor position on the State Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Viet-Nam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about VietNam at hand than I did.
The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system.
And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too, in the hope the my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
the only president we have on record of saying that he loathed the military.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 5:05pm
We could see the Russian fleet patrolling off of the Florida coast to back up Fidel.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 4:43pm
Do you mean Raul? And the point of the Russian's backing up Cuba would be due to the imminent invasion by the US?
Your post sounds like paranoid schizophrenia.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 5:16pm
Do you mean Raul? And the point of the Russian's backing up Cuba would be due to the imminent invasion by the US?
Your post sounds like paranoid schizophrenia.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 5:16pm
Really? I witnessed all those things in the 60's while in the military.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 5:25pm
I get it now.
I see why our neocon friends are having this Cold War longing again--It's Nostalgia!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/31/2009 @ 5:32pm
YOUR article, Mask, proves Extraneous wrong. Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 4:49pm
SJ, your logic does not follow. This statement says NOTHING about Reagan being responsible for Gorbachev coming to power, only that Reagans policies strenghened Gorbachev's ability to proceed with reforms. That is not something I dispute. Your reading comprehension needs work.
"a reduction in U.S. military spending in the latter years of his presidency, strengthened Gorbachev's ability to proceed with reform in the Soviet Union"
I have no idea how you interpret this to mean Reagan was responsible for bringing Gorbachev to power? That is a major leap considering the facts provided. The tie between Reagan's policies, economic pressures on the Soviets and the selection of Gorbachev is far from "blatantly obvious".
Your statement "Without the U.S. defense build up, after Chernenko died, the Soviets would have most likely gone with a younger hard-liner rather than Gorbachev" is unrelated to anything in the article that could prove me wrong. Sorry to burst you bubble.
What appears to be happening is that in your neocon hero worship of Reagan you credit him for more than he is due.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 5:48pm
I get it now.
I see why our neocon friends are having this Cold War longing again--It's Nostalgia!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/31/2009 @ 5:32pm
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 5:53pm
Do you mean Raul? And the point of the Russian's backing up Cuba would be due to the imminent invasion by the US?
Your post sounds like paranoid schizophrenia.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 5:16pm
Really? I witnessed all those things in the 60's while in the military.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 5:25pm
Yes Really! The year in case you missed it is 2009. Had you been in the military in the 1940s you would still be scared of the resurgence of Nazi Germany? Seems like a classic case.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 5:57pm
Yes Really! The year in case you missed it is 2009. Had you been in the military in the 1940s you would still be scared of the resurgence of Nazi Germany? Seems like a classic case.
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 5:57pm
No, Nazi Germany is gone. However, Russia and China are rapidly expanding their military strength.
Do you think they have peaceful designs?If so, on what basis?
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 6:03pm
Do you think they have peaceful designs?If so, on what basis?
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 6:03pm
And the Soviet Union is gone too.
No one knows what their designs are, maybe their just scared of us and our policies of pre-emptive war?
Posted by Extraneous at 03/31/2009 @ 6:36pm
The NATO was created as a defensive alliance to counter the Soviet military might. At least this was the justification. After the demise of the Soviet Union there is no reason for the NATO to exist. So now it is being used by the American 'Empire' to continue the subjugation of the Third World in order to use their natural resources for the imperial powers. It is for this reason that the NATO forces are hated as much as the US forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere. In the fight against terrorism the presence of the US and the NATO troops are the main hindrance and their military tactics are counter-productive. It is important therefore that these forces are replaced by UN Peace Keeping forces. Some NATO forces could easily be placed under the UN Command. Since UN forces are non-combatant forces and are not seen as a tool of imperial powers they may be acceptable to majority of Afghans except perhaps the hard core Taliban or Al Qaida. The UN forces will not only provide political stability but also start a dialogue with different factions in Afghanistan to form an interim-coalition government and a constituent assembly to draft a constitution. Of course, the UN will have to be provided with sufficient funding both for the maintenance of peace and stability as well as for promoting economic development which brings some visible improvements in the living conditions of ordinary Afghans, majority of whom do not support either Taliban or Al Qaida. Any funding required by the UN Peace Keepers would be much less than what the US is spending on the Afghanistan war. Arguably, the UN record both of peace keeping as well misuse of money is a mixed one, but it is no where near the scandalous waste of resources by the US military command.
Posted by radhasinha at 03/31/2009 @ 6:36pm
Extraneous,
You think that you are good at parsing words, but you are not.
The article said "...After a defense buildup that pushed the Soviets to the verge of economic collapse..."
And Ronald Reagan initiated the defense buildup and that caused the Soviet economic problems.
You contend that Ronald Reagan did not bring about the Soviet collapse, and you are wrong. The defense buildup brought about a Soviet collapse that would not have occurred otherwise, and there are words in the article (above) that confirm this.
The article did not discuss the selection of Gorbachev as Soviet leader... I was addressing another one of your contentions.. that Gorbachev was one of the reasons for the Soviet collapse (you hypothesize a whole bunch of reasons other than Ronald Reagan), as though to credit Gorbachev. I was pointing out that Gorbachev deserves no credit because he would not have been Soviet leader if the economic conditions there had not been dire, and that Gorbachev did not want to end communism or the Soviet Union anyway.
So I did not mean to imply that the article disproved all of your contentions specifically, when I said the article disproved you.
It did disprove your major contention, it is another confirmation that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War by building up the military (allowed to wither by Mr. Peanut) which brought about economic pressure on the Soviets which resulted in Soviet collapse, all of which you try to imply is not true, and you contend Ronald Reagan was just present as it happened, nothing more.
The selection of Gorbachev rather than a hard liner was an after effect and a result of the defense buildup and economic situation.
I have re-stated this over and over again now, I can't help it if you are stubborn and don't get the point.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 7:08pm
NATO has served the purpose it was intended do. Today we need even a stronger NATO. If the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Venezuelans, Iranian and Islamic Terrorists wanted peace then only then yes dissolve NATO.
The USA came to be, what it is. Because its desire and hunger for freedom.
Freedom is the absent of war and the pursuit of happiness.
Peace only comes thru the respect of oneself as integrity is display by our actions to others. Your rights begin where your neighbors end.
Nothing is so strong as gentleness. Nothing is so gentle as real strength. The man or woman who is at peace with self Is less likely to war with others.
If the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Venezuelans, Iranians and Islamic Terrorists would be gentle then dissolve NATO.
Posted by 7angel at 03/31/2009 @ 7:25pm
Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 4:42pm
I just love knowing that THE MYTH isn't what you once thought.
Careful, start actually thinking...it could become a habit.
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 9:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 4:43pm
1st...Oh, but remember Larry. Poland and Czech Republic (atleast their people) are BALKING at our missile shields. Seems their ripe for Commie takeover, no?
Plus that's just a tiny fraction of the continent. Russia is HUGE and with their back-to-pre-1964 pals the Chinese, almost two billion people!
2nd...The Scorpion? I'm sorry, you think the Russkies sank the Scorpion?
What John Birch Society website did you get THAT off of????
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 9:07pm
reagan shot a man in reno!
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/31/2009 @ 9:24pm
I'm against dimwitted 'missile shield' plans and waving our willies at Russia via ignorant, egomaniacal Georgian despo-puppets.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 08:36am
mccain's october surprise proved to be quite flaccid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/31/2009 @ 9:27pm
Reagan did defeat the Soviets..that is not disputable.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 10:33am
and the u.s., too!
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/31/2009 @ 9:30pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 09:03am |
Have you thought that maybe the reason they are expanding is for the same reason we are expanding? I know you like to think that America is always reactionary, but we have been expanding our militaries power since World War I. The Cold War ramped it up. If I was another country I would expand too, just to make sure I could protect myself.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2009 @ 11:12pm
I have read the article, and the comments and I have one question ... While the American Military is too large by any measure and needs to be paired down, what are we to do about the real threats presented by states like North Korea (crazy leader), Iran (crazy leader who hates Israel) and general terror threats? At these meeting of groups opposed to military intervention they also offer up all the good things that can come if the money was not spent on guns and bombs, but there are some bad people out there who believe killing large groups of people is a solution, how do we stop them? That is what to know, not more missile shields, more nucs, or unmanned attacks across borders.
Peace is a wonderful, but only if all are willing to abide by a set of laws, we dream of peace for all, but too many places in the world are bent on killing each other and anyone else ... How do we change that!
Posted by rloghry at 04/01/2009 @ 12:57am
rloghry is right on the mark. Who, other than the US and NATO, is going to serve as a buffer between Japan and China, India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, and Russia and Europe. Without a US/NATO military buffer in each of these regions, Japan will have to develop nuclear weapons to protect itself against China, India and Pakistan may resort of nuclear war in their dispute over Kashmir, Iran will go nuclear and eventually attack Israel, and Germany will have to develop nuclear weapons to counterbalance Russia. This is not me talking, it's Brzezinski in his anti-Bush Doctrine book "The Choice."
If not the US/NATO, would you prefer, say, a China headlining on the global stage, with her record of human rights in Tibet and environmental degradation in Africa?
By the way, NATO was created because Soviet Russia did not honor the spirit of the treaties that ended WWII. Instead, she opted, in expanding her Soviet Empire, to turn Eastern Europe into some of the most repressive violators of human rights (imperially controlled from Moscow) the modern world has seen.
The Nation has been a great journal for pointing out the needs of the underside of American society and the abuses of the upper classes and corporations, but it's a lousy one for looking at global affairs. Seriously, if want a quick and accurate synopsis of what goes on around the globe, go to The Economist.
Posted by cruiser2000 at 04/01/2009 @ 06:26am
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/31/2009 @ 9:30pm
Reagan worship is a political religion, FROSTY.
For all their talk about US thinking Obama is a "Messiah"....The Gipper is to them, in every sense of the word.
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 08:23am
Mask,
You talk about Myths, regarding Ronald Reagan.
What you don't explain is what is the point, yours or others on this?
It seems you are trying to prove President Reagan is not the Conservative icon that Conservatives hold him up to be.
But... Reagan pushed Conservatism much further than most other Republicans would have, to the benefit of our country, and accomplished things like the defeat of the Soviet Union.
And... You seem to be on a mission to prove he wasn't a Conservative but the reality is he was still far more Conservative than you libs tolerate.
And... Some of your lib "proof" such as your article undercuts arguments made by many libs over the years demonizing Reagan.
And... Conservatives may idolize Ronald Reagan, but libs have idols too, such as Ted Kennedy. And Barack Obama, in a new twist on this, became idolized by the left BEFORE he even became President!
So, like I say, it is a mystery as to what you are trying to accomplish with your arguments.
It does appear they are some form of a lib mind game... it seems you and other libs engage in this when you want to deflect people's attention or people's arguments from the leftist agenda.
Case in point... Obama is moving the country dramatically leftward... so you were patrolling these blogs, as well as other libs, engaging in arguments about the precise definition of the word Socialist, arguing what it means to be leftist, liberal, etc.... claiming these "labels" are just right wing bogeymen, etc.... with the extreme example being Darladoon chiming in claiming Obama is not a Leftist!
All of which appear to be leftist ploys to divert focus from what is really happening and leftist attempts (unsuccessful, by the way) to weaken Conservative credibility.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/01/2009 @ 08:26am
snowball666,
Excellent comments, excellent post. Well done.
Opinions by you, nothing more.
You say the wall came down on his (Reagan's) watch.
The wall came down because of Ronald Reagan and his policies as President (and don't forget - John F. Kennedy, also, who told the Soviets in 1963 that the communism would not last and would not be tolerated).
So we both know why the wall came down, except you won't admit it and you profess it to be otherwise.
But... only one of us apparently knows whose watch the wall came down on..... George H. W. Bush was President of the United States when the wall came down... it came down on Bush 41's watch.
John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan are the reasons WHY the wall came down... the WHEN part happened when George Herbert Walker Bush was President.
I stress this only because we on the Right are told over and over again in many ways how enlightened and smart you on the Left are, and how morally superior you on the left are, but for somebody so intelligent and smart (you are, of course, because you are a lib) you do not even know your American or World History facts correctly.
You may think I am nitpicking. Yes, I am nitpicking, because you the enlightened are the ones who profess to be so intelligent while you profess that Conservatives are stupid, dumb, or as you say Kool-Aid drinkers.
And this starts at the top, because the President of the United States thinks that residents of the Commonwealth of Pennslyvania are hicks and hayseeds - so I guess you take your lead from the President and have the same attitude about people he has.
In case you noticed, and I am sure you did not, the previous President did not have that kind of attitude towards people, unless they were elitists like you.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/01/2009 @ 10:18am
2nd...The Scorpion? I'm sorry, you think the Russkies sank the Scorpion?
What John Birch Society website did you get THAT off of????
Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 9:07pm
I have personal information and experience following the tragedy. I have not relied upon outside resources.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:40am
snowball666,
You say "......No, the urge to attack me, instead of my principles or ideas, is too strong, I guess. ....."
I guess it is because I learned that from libs... you see libs all the time on this site and elsewhere doing that to Conservatives, over and over again.
I was watching a late night talk show by Chris Matthews, lib journalist, and since this was his own talk show there was no need to maintain any pretense of objectivity.
And there were two other libs in a round table discussion.. this was in the period of time between the election and the inauguration.... and these 3 libs were amusing themselves by wondering aloud what President Bush would do after his term ended and he went home to Texas. And they snickered and laughed about the thought that he may do some reading.
You see, they "knew" that President Bush doesn't read, or doesn't read weighty intellectual material, or for sure he doesn't read material that they, the intellectual lib heavyweights, are capable of reading.
Their "knowledege" of this was pulled out of their rear ends, I have seen articles documenting how much George W. Bush did read, and a lot of it was American literature that many libs would have read also.
This behavior, by smug elitist snobs, is out there in the public domain and that is why I comment like I do. It is reality.
I knew what you meant... about the wall... I was being sarcastic because I felt like it.. If you do not like it too bad..... consider it payback for Chris Matthews' attitude about President Bush.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/01/2009 @ 11:54am
"Conservatives may idolize Ronald Reagan"
Yes...that's what I said. Thanks for the confirmation, SJCHER.
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 12:16pm
I have personal information and experience following the tragedy. I have not relied upon outside resources----------Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:40am
Uh, Larry, if you didn't rely oon "outside resources"....it would mean you would have had to have BEEN on the USS Scorpion when it went down.
A lone survivor we've never heard of....or would you care to revise your remarks, Senator?
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 12:17pm
snowball666,
I have a negative attitude about being lectured by discourse police.
Comments go fast and furious on these blogs as well as other blogs in the public domain, but invariably there will be a lib who throws penalty flags about discourse.
When that happens I pick the flag up and throw it back at the lib.
ficheye is out there somewhere and last I remember ficheye recommended I eat newspaper or I do eat newspaper or whatever. I did not even try to figure out the point, other than the realization that it was asinine and idiotic.
I do know that some purpose of this discorse police activity is to get Conservatives to self-censor themselves, to hold back and not be nasty or sharp or biting or critical in the commentary that is put forth.
Libs of course say what they want when they want and they do not hold back.
Thus, libs are seeking the advantage here.
Libs want Conservatives they are arguing with to be little John McCains in cyberspace, seeking to be liked by libs that they are discussing issues with.
snowball666, you can lecture all you want, but I am not going to allow myself to get John McCain disease.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/01/2009 @ 12:49pm
Mask,
You say I have confirmed what you said. What nobody has yet figured out, me or anybody else, is what is your point?
What is it you are driving at? What is it you are trying to prove? What element of lib behavior are you trying to "Mask" with your fixation how Conservative or non-Conservative you think Ronald Reagan is or was?
What is Obama doing that you don't want to admit will be bad for the country and that you don't want to admit is leftist behavior, and that in order to avoid having to admit it you are engaging in this nonsense instead? (Instead of some other nonsense on some other topic, which you would be doing if you were not stuck on this?)
My curiosity has got the better of me and I do know one thing- I will have to remain curious because you will never admit or fess up to what your current motive is or what cyber-shenanigan you are attempting now.
There may be a simpler explanation - that this is what amuses you and "floats your boat".... if your amusement is that important to you than OK, I am glad to be able to help you out and make myself available so you can have your fun.
It is the least I can do, I guess. And you libs say Conservatives are not compassionate!
Posted by sjchermak at 04/01/2009 @ 12:56pm
Mask,
I mentioned John McCain in the post back to snowball666 above the post back to you.
So, I know what is coming next.
Yes, Mask I voted for John McCain despite his comments on global warming. And if you remember, I told you he was the less lib-lib and I voted for him instead of the more lib-lib, and that the more lib-lib had another lib on the ticket for VP, whereas the less lib-lib McCain had a Conservative on the ticket for VP.
And no, Mask, I am not taking your bet as to whether the less lib-lib's running mate will "deny" global warming when she runs for and wins the Presidental race in 2012, and I told you why... I told you people including the Village Idiot Algore may not be talking about global warming at all in 2012 because they will want to avoid questions about why they hyped something that had not been publically debated by scientists, had not been proven, and by 2012 may well be obvious is not even happening.
No, I don't have the percentage of radicals among Islamic people for you, you were given the explanation about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I finally broke down and answered you about why W did not take out the Iranian nuclear program, and I do not remember any other of your questions right now.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/01/2009 @ 1:04pm
. How do we change that! Posted by rloghry at 04/01/2009 @ 12:57am | ignore this person | warn this person
we can start by killing fewer ourselves. you're just another member of the grr, kill, kill club.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 1:48pm
Seriously, if want a quick and accurate synopsis of what goes on around the globe, go to The Economist. Posted by cruiser2000 at 04/01/2009 @ 06:26am | ignore this person | warn this person
that publication backed Bush. that is all you need to know.
your post and Brez' too are alarmist nonsense.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 1:52pm
In terms of NATO, I am a liberal who thinks it should not be disbanded. It still has a valuable role to play - the western world still has common interests, such as Afghanistan (the fight against anti-western terrorism), etc. Posted by FDR43 at 03/31/2009 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal. Phil Ochs.
NATO has been singularly ineffective in fighting terrorism.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 1:58pm
I have personal information and experience following the tragedy. I have not relied upon outside resources----------Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:40am
Uh, Larry, if you didn't rely oon "outside resources"....it would mean you would have had to have BEEN on the USS Scorpion when it went down.
A lone survivor we've never heard of....or would you care to revise your remarks, Senator?
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 12:17pm
I will say that your assumptions fail to consider more explanations.
I did not need to be onboard to have personal experience with what happened to the Scorpion.
Related to the Scorpion, but not directly related to confirming what happened, I did know personally, one of the two people who got off the boat in Roda Spain shortly before she departed and went down off the Azores.
Sorry for delaying; while I started writing this I was reminded to try and contact an old military buddy who also knew the guy who got off in Rota because he had appendicitis.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 2:02pm
snowball666,
So I am an "asshat".... but Phil McCrevice says I am an assclown.
Which is it?
I won the election for you? Who is you? I guess since Obama won, then you are a soldier for Obama, just like Obama was a soldier for Stroger in Cook County.
But what will be interesting is the commentary you have to offer from 2013 to 2021, when Sarah Palin is President, and then the commentary you will have from 2021 to 2019, when Bobby Jindal is President.
I won't be thanking you for that, because Ms. Palin and Mr. Jindal are quite capable of getting to the Presidency without your help.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/01/2009 @ 2:07pm
BIG TIME TYPO ABOVE,
I meant to say the Jindal Presidency will be from 2021 to 2029, not 2019.
I am a Conservative, who looks forward and believes in ideas that fix people's problems..... unlike libs, who look back and try to implement policy that has already been proven not to work.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/01/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 2:02pm
Okay, so again...
you weren't on the Scorpion, your friends GOT OFF the Scorpion before it sank...
but you have "inside info" on how the Russians sank it, that none of the US NAVY investigations show?
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/01/2009 @ 2:10pm
So again, and ask HSUBFOOLS I'm very patient...
come 2012 and no Palin election to the White House....your excuse will be???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 2:54pm
Okay, so again...
you weren't on the Scorpion, your friends GOT OFF the Scorpion before it sank...
but you have "inside info" on how the Russians sank it, that none of the US NAVY investigations show?
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 2:53pm
I did not say what other first hand information I had and I'm not going to reveal it. But it is supported by several other investigations besides the whitewashing that the govt gave it.
What happened to the Scorpion, nearly happened many more times during the Cold War. I was involved in a couple of the incidents with the Russians during the late 60's. In one case, Military Intel, CIA and Secret Service all had a hand in confiscating the photos that some of us had taken.
It seems you are like most Americans in that you don't have a clue about all of the stuff that went on and never found daylight in the media. Even I only know a small part of it from my own experiences and those of some other friends who worked for CIA and Air Force Intel among others.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 3:07pm
But it is supported by several other investigations besides the whitewashing that the govt gave it.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 3:07pm
So Larry, the UNITED STATES NAVY (which I believe you served in)...
"whitewashed" the deliberate sinking of an American submarine by the Soviets?
And your "personal knowledge" supercedes their investigation and findings...but "you can't talk about it".
Ah-ha. Did the Chinese sink the Thresher or was it the Palestinians in their super-secret kamikaze torpedo bombers?
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 3:35pm
In 1930's, during the midst of the Great Depression, the pacifists announced "Peace in our Time." Shortly thereafter we ended up at war.
In 2009, during the midst of the Great Recession, the pacifists cry "No to War, No to Nato."
Hopefully, this time our leaders, having learned the folly of appeasement, will act in our self-interest and defend our freedoms, including the right of those who wish to protest.
How? By moving to dismantle the terror networks of Hamas, Hezzbollah, Al Queda and the Taliban, while stopping state sponsored terror by Syria and Iran, along with preventing the Iranian Mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Posted by John.Frank at 04/01/2009 @ 3:54pm
"whitewashed" the deliberate sinking of an American submarine by the Soviets?
And your "personal knowledge" supercedes their investigation and findings...but "you can't talk about it".
Ah-ha. Did the Chinese sink the Thresher or was it the Palestinians in their super-secret kamikaze torpedo bombers?
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 3:35pm
That's correct. The govt has whitewashed numerous incidents. The fact that you don't believe it is not surprising. there have been many attacks, collisions, and other unreported incidents between the US and Russia, especially during the Cold War.
I bet
My knowledge doesn't supercede their investigation. A number of experts disagreed with their findings, some wrote about it in book form.
The Thresher was most likely an accident.
One incident I was at tells part of the story. Even Wiki includes a minor hint at the real story. It leaves out the more intriguing parts that the govt will probably never declassify.
It was a 1969 incident off our coast involving Nixon, our Navy, and the Russians. the writers tell the "official" story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_(CV-60)
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 4:12pm
What year is it?
1873: a world full of many different national powers, increasing international trade, wild swings in the economy.
1905: relatively peaceful, with a little terrorism, but looming catastrophe on the horizon in the form of a great power war?
1929: the start of a great economic downturn and the rise of totalitarian states?
1964: inflation, enormous deficit spending, foreign wars that don't seem to end?
1981: gas price worries, the West appearing weak and demoralized just before the beginning of a great economic boom?
Posted by Mistral at 04/01/2009 @ 4:44pm
I am always learning new stuff on this site.
I always thought a Thresher was some kind of farm implement. Now I'm finding out Commies are involved. Sheesh.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/01/2009 @ 4:47pm
defend our freedoms, including the right of those who wish to protest.
you're not defending our freedoms in Afghanistan, that is the big lie.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 5:39pm
The Thresher was most likely an accident.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 4:12pm
Wait a minute....a few hours ago, you were hinting that it was sunk by the Russians?!?!???!?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 6:37pm
Wait a minute....a few hours ago, you were hinting that it was sunk by the Russians?!?!???!?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 6:37pm
No, not the Thresher, the Scorpion. The Thresher was 1964 in the N Atlantic. the Scorpion 1968 near the Azores.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 7:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 7:08pm |
Sorry, my confusion.
So, again, how is it that the United States Navy covered up the Soviets sinking one of our submarines...and why?
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 10:08pm
Sorry, my confusion.
So, again, how is it that the United States Navy covered up the Soviets sinking one of our submarines...and why?
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 10:08pm
Probably for the same reason they didn't report many incidents. Afraid to go to war; afraid of the Russians; I really don't know their ultimate reasoning.
But I'm telling you that a number of major incidents happened. If I witnessed a few, I'm sure the number is exponentially larger.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:02pm
Mask,
I'll add 1 more reason. Before the Scorpion went down, we sank a Russian sub in the Pacific, the K129. There is genuine belief that the Scorpion was revenge.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:04pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 11:04pm
So we initiated an unprovoked act of war against the Soviet Union's K-129 submarine?!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 07:49am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/02/2009 @ 08:46am
Think Larry's going beyond "pucker moments", snow...and into full scale conspiracy theories of the United States Navy covering up the deliberate sinking of an American submarine by the Soviets.
Where's RESE and PLUNGER when you need them????
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 09:10am
Mask
Retired United States Navy Captain Peter Huchthausen, former naval attaché in Moscow, had a brief conversation in 1987 with Soviet admirals concerning K-129. Huchthausen states that Admiral Peter Navojtsev told him, "Captain, you are very young and inexperienced, but you will learn that there were some matters that both nations have agreed to not discuss, and one of these is the reasons we lost K-129."[5] In 1995, when Huchthausen began work on a book about the Soviet underwater fleet, he interviewed Admiral Victor Dygalo, who stated that the true history of K-129 has not been revealed because of the informal agreement between the two countries' senior naval commands. The purpose of that secrecy, he alleged, is to stop any further research into the losses of USS Scorpion (SSN-589) and K-129. Huchthausen states that Dygalo told him to "overlook this matter, and hope that the time will come when the truth will be told to the families of the victims."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-129_(Golf_II)
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 09:24am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 09:24am
Well, that proves it, Larry. Clear evidence we sunk theirs and they sunk ours.
BTW, if we were deliberately sinking their subs or they ours....why just one a piece? Why not one every other year or every year...or two or three a year?
Did we have some arrangement with the Russkies "Okay, we each get to sink one sub and nobody mentions it...but no more after that"?
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 11:13am
<i>Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 09:10</i>
Hmm...why would the US Navy deliberately cover up an overt military act by the Soviets? Could be tons of reasons. Might be that we didn't want to start WWIII; that might have had something to do with it. Could also have been other stuff going on; it's not like we were doing advanced research or anything, certainly never with subs...Honestly, your position really just seems to translate to "so SURELY the military could never have reason to limit information about an incident during the Cold War." Really?
Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2009 @ 11:22am
Posted by Thrawn at 04/02/2009 @ 11:22am
So, we "allowed" the Soviets to sink the Scorpion...to cover up OUR deliberate attack on one of theirs.
Ah-ha. And why did we raise a stink over the missiles in Cuba, if we had such a cozy relationship with the Russkies back in the 60s???
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 12:23pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/02/2009 @ 12:36pm
1. If a "fender bender" then why the hush-up, given other such events were admitted publically? For instance the May 1967 collision between the USS Walker and the Soviet destroyer Bessledyl, was in the news openly.
2. If a "tit-for-tat", seems a strange arrangement. "We sank one of yours deliberately...don't get mad, we'll pull a 'Fail Safe' and let you sink one of ours a few years from now"? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to grant them some trade treaty with a big cash bonus under-the-table....rather than let them sink a multi-million dollar nuclear sub and kill a few hundred American sailors?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:20pm
So, we "allowed" the Soviets to sink the Scorpion...to cover up OUR deliberate attack on one of theirs.
Ah-ha. And why did we raise a stink over the missiles in Cuba, if we had such a cozy relationship with the Russkies back in the 60s???
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 12:23pm
From what I do know about the incident, I don't believe it was a case of "allowing" the Soviets to sink the Scorpion.
It was more of a case that we decided because of the K129 not to pursue war. That is furthered by the fact that we recovered the K129 and we never allowed the Russians to even know where it was or where we buried the few Russian bodies we recovered.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 1:47pm
tinhat> What if both were attempts to lure the other into stealing bogus planted tech...disinfo? </tinhat>
Posted by snowball666 at 04/02/2009 @ 1:49pm
In the case of K129, we recovered some Russian nukes and data books/tapes etc.
In the case of Scorpion, some intel says that the Russians were able to trap Scorpion because of intel given to the Russians by
http://tinyurl.com/crdpyj
The belief that Scorpion got set up is because of some additional intel. Traitor John Walker provide the Soviets with intel about our nuke subs. the Scorpion was on patrol in the med when it stopped in Rota to drop off my friend who had appendicitis and another sailor. It then got rush orders to an area near the Azores with Russian activity. The Russians may have had maneuvering information among other intel that allowed them to make the "kill" of the Scorpion.
The self-inflicted torpedo shot that supposedly came back and struck them won't wash. the reasons are both declassified and some classified. But I can tell you that Scorpion would have successfully evaded it's own torpedo.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 2:14pm
Certainly the opportunity for a nasty trap if they know where you are at one point and where you'll be if you respond to the feint.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/02/2009 @ 2:22pm
yes, and there is a lot of evidence that backs up the contention that this happened to the Scorpion.
Without some detail, I distinctly remember orders being issued to commands to receive new codes after the incident and destroy the old ones.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/02/2009 @ 2:27pm
Okay, guys. Let's look at the theory once again-
WE (the US) deliberately sank a Russian ballistic missile sub, the K129, fearing NO international incident and NO retribution and NO potential nuclear war....so that we could TRY to recover the sub later to see what kind of subs and SLBMs the Russkies had.
So...they found out we sank it and in turn sank the USS Scorpion off the Azores, knowing that WE wouldn't raise a stink about it (due to our actions).
And did it in such a perfect way, that the Scorpion would lay so deep in the water that no eyes-on investigation (by observational sub or unmanned camera) would be possible for decades.
So THEN, the United States Navy colluded to cover up the "real" cause of the Scorpion's demise, because if they accused the Soviets, the Soviets would accuse us back on the K129 and it would...somehow...be worse than us than the original extremely risky move of our deliberate sinking of their sub?
Ah......ha.
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 2:30pm
MY TAKE ON WARS AND NATO
When I hear the word war I first think of theft. Then I think of all the needless and warrant less deaths, the rape, plunder and then again of the WHYS the spoils of war. Our wretched past of allowing the Bush Bunch to war for no reason is a scar on all of us in America whether we like it or not.
We have a teaching ministry in the Congo and Emmanuel confirmed just days ago that NATO has provided no help whatsoever. In may have been a conspiracy to some of the horrors there.
Dwight Baker Chairman for the Grass Roots Actions needed to form our own truth filled lobby We the Peoples Advocacy WTPA Co founder of Bondservants of Christ Jesus Ministries
Posted by DWIGHTBAKER at 04/02/2009 @ 3:18pm
Posted by DWIGHTBAKER at 04/02/2009 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is good.
I don't usually have much sympathy for bible thumpers.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/02/2009 @ 3:28pm
Posted by DWIGHTBAKER at 04/02/2009 @ 3:18pm
Well, I'm sorry, Dwight, but apparently you are a false Christian, because as antisoc will tell you...
Jesus loves war....American wars naturally.
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 3:52pm
Gen. Jack D. Ripper:
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
......................................
Yeah, yeah.
Is it some kind of blessing to have an illustrious warmonger like antisocialist posting here? Sorry gang, but now that I know of his 'cluster bomb' baby, and now of all his knowledge of CIA stuff and other defense involvements I'm getting the creeps.
Then he says something about the lord here and there... It's really Strangelove stuff. What kind of pastor is this guy, and what does he tell 'the boys?' "Kill those commies, son, and kill 'em good... Jesus is watching, and there's gonna be hell to pay if you don't do a real good job..heheheh..."
I gotta go water board my goldfish.
Posted by ficheye at 04/03/2009 @ 01:23am
Posted by ficheye at 04/03/2009 @ 01:23am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 07:08am
Larry (antisoc) sort of confused by "Strangelove"....he's wondering why the audience is laughing at Ripper and Buck Turgidson, "What? They're right!"
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 08:19am
war is politics by other means. Clausewitz.
it follows that politicians must rule the generals, and not the other way around.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 08:56am
it follows that politicians must rule the generals, and not the other way around.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 08:56am
That has always been the case in this country. What is more worrisome is a president who may not listen to his generals.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:33am
What is more worrisome is a president who may not listen to his generals.--------Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 09:33am
Like General Eric Shinseki?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 10:19am
Perhaps he merely pines for the days when the President WAS the General.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 10:31am
Actually, I do prefer that. I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of any president, Republican or Democrat who has not served in the military.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 10:40am
Perhaps he merely pines for the days when the President WAS the General.--------Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 10:31am
Actually, I do prefer that.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 10:40am
Really? YOU DO?
Who was the LAST general who was President, Larry, and what's your opinion of his Presidency?!???!??
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 12:01pm
Really? YOU DO?
Who was the LAST general who was President, Larry, and what's your opinion of his Presidency?!???!??
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 12:01pm
I said it's my preference but it still doesn't guarantee they will do what's right domestically. My concern was foreign policy
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 12:14pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 12:14pm
Don't forget Bush-41, combat pilot...but not your favorite either.
So really, you only like a SPECIFIC TYPE of military officer in charge.
And really, given Dubya's dubious term of service...and Cheney's complete lack of it....you'll take a NON-military officer over someone who was in-country (Gore)...or actually fought battles (Kerry).
So...really....what you said is total crap. Nixon was a quartermaster over McGovern a combat bomber pilot with numerous missions. Reagan made movies. And didn't you say you voted third party in 1996...not even supported wounded combat vet Bob Dole?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:08pm
Don't forget Bush-41, combat pilot...but not your favorite either.
So really, you only like a SPECIFIC TYPE of military officer in charge.
And really, given Dubya's dubious term of service...and Cheney's complete lack of it....you'll take a NON-military officer over someone who was in-country (Gore)...or actually fought battles (Kerry).
So...really....what you said is total crap. Nixon was a quartermaster over McGovern a combat bomber pilot with numerous missions. Reagan made movies. And didn't you say you voted third party in 1996...not even supported wounded combat vet Bob Dole?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:08pm
Of course the first criteria is their overall conservative views, then a preference for a veteran.
I won't support a liberal veteran obviously.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:14pm
Odd there were so many of them, huh?
And so few combat vets that were conservatives....Nixon, again, a quartermaster. Reagan, made movies. Dubya, flew "combat missions" over West Texas.
The Repubs who WERE in combat or close to it, you don't like much....Ike....Goldwater (Remember, he's the guy who said ""Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.")...Bush-41.....Dole.
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 2:23pm
BTW, what would you have thought of Douglas MacArthur as President?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 2:23pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 3:07pm
Snow, serioiusly, as is so often the case, Larry says something...and then it is completely contradicted by him (or the facts).
He loves SAYING he supports military men as Presidents...but when offered up examples, he then switchs to "well, not LIBERAL military officers"...
then when offered up examples like Cheney or Newt Gingrich or Limbaugh, he'll take them over any even MODERATE combat vet like George HW Bush.
So his proclaimed preference of the military Commanders-in-Chief is just bullshit. He just loves right-wingers...and military background be damned.
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 3:11pm
Foreign policy.
Does that mean 'strange policy'
or
'overseas policy'
or
'policy that is really hard to understand'.
And not supporting a liberal veteran seems pretty strange, as well. The assumption here (as far as I understand it) is that they are not as mean and willing to bomb the shit out of things and support weapons R and D as a conservative might be.
It's all becoming much clearer, one point at a time.
Keep the industrial military complex revenue base. Make inhumanly nasty weapons so we can kill from afar and maintain world domination through technological superiority. Be afraid, very afraid. And talk to Jesus when you might feel bad or are doubting yourself. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. I'm really having a hard time figuring out where Jesus fits in to any of this, but further research is indicated. Or not.
Posted by ficheye at 04/03/2009 @ 3:25pm
BTW, what would you have thought of Douglas MacArthur as President?
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 2:23pm
While I certainly admire MacArthur as an officer and military leader, I have no idea what his political views were.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:27pm
So this is why you had a problem with GHW? i.e. too liberal, despite his proven courage?
Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 3:07pm
Absolutely. Bush sr was a liberal, Rockefeller Republican and so I voted 3rd party.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:28pm
Snow, serioiusly, as is so often the case, Larry says something...and then it is completely contradicted by him (or the facts).
He loves SAYING he supports military men as Presidents...but when offered up examples, he then switchs to "well, not LIBERAL military officers"...
then when offered up examples like Cheney or Newt Gingrich or Limbaugh, he'll take them over any even MODERATE combat vet like George HW Bush.
So his proclaimed preference of the military Commanders-in-Chief is just bullshit. He just loves right-wingers...and military background be damned.
Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 3:11pm
There is no contradiction Mask (though you love to create out of fiction supposed contradictions).
It is simple, so simple that even you should be able to follow it (though I know you will try to twist things anyway).
Preferences in a Presidential Candidate
1. Conservative military veteran who is pro-life, anti-homosexual special rights, constitutional originalist, for low taxes and control of Fed Spending, and strong military with agressive foreign policy views.
2. Same as above, but non veteran.
3. Don't vote
As to Gingrich, he has diminished some in my view for being to willing to embrace some liberal ideas; even though he is still better than almost any other Democrat. I would still prefer a veteran conservative candidate over Gingrich.
Limbaugh will never run for president, so it's a stupid suggestion. And I don't think I'd vote for him anyway.
Cheney meets number 2 criteria
And Bush Sr is a liberal not a moderate in my opinion.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:37pm
And not supporting a liberal veteran seems pretty strange, as well. The assumption here (as far as I understand it) is that they are not as mean and willing to bomb the shit out of things and support weapons R and D as a conservative might be.
It's all becoming much clearer, one point at a time.
Keep the industrial military complex revenue base. Make inhumanly nasty weapons so we can kill from afar and maintain world domination through technological superiority. Be afraid, very afraid. And talk to Jesus when you might feel bad or are doubting yourself. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. I'm really having a hard time figuring out where Jesus fits in to any of this, but further research is indicated. Or not.
Posted by ficheye at 04/03/2009 @ 3:25pm
No, the biggest problem with a liberal veteran is the domestic policies they would push.
And I've posted enough information and scripture over the years here about the fact that Jesus did not condemn nor forbid nations defending themselves. In fact, quite the opposite.
It's not about liking war or weapons. It's about defending the right to live and defeating evil.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:44pm
Social policy beefs?
Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 3:42pm
He lied about taxes-raised them.
No one ever believed he was a social conservative
He did nothing to reduce the size of govt
He pushed increases in fed spending for education and childcare, neither of which the fed is empowered to fund
On SCOTUS, he was 1/2 right-Clarence Thomas. but he also gave us the dreadful David Souter.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:58pm
Macarthur was a complex character that I HAVE NOT done enough homework on. But I think he managed to cheese off just about everyone, left and right. Had some populist-leaning views on some things thrown in for good measure, too, I think.
Given the CAVEAT I'm not well enough read on him, I do think he got along better with Roosevelt than with Truman, if that's any overall barometer.
To me, he's a hard one to pigeonhole politically. He was basically a GEEZER by the time WWII rolled around, too.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/03/2009 @ 3:59pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=schnellerheinz
Mac was 59 when WW2 started, 70 when the Korean war started.
he ruled as a dictator in Japan during the occupation, all the while preaching democracy.
"Embracing Defeat" Japan in the wake of world war 2, John W Dower, recipient of the Pulitzer prize.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 4:21pm
It's not about liking war or weapons. It's about defending the right to live and defeating evil. Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:44pm
It seems like we're not really defending ourselves; we're being the aggressor right now, in wars that are mostly preemptive in nature. Not to mention the high number of military bases around the world that seem only useful in keeping our footprint big, maintaining a presence. An expensive one at that.
Re:"...but he also gave us the dreadful David Souter."
You mean Roberts, don't you? Maybe not.
Posted by ficheye at 04/03/2009 @ 6:50pm
This thing about Jesus of Nazarath gnaws at me.
I just don't see how he could have been prescient to the extent that he could foresee Atomic weapons, predator drones, cluster bombs, etc., not to mention the ongoing and eternal jewish struggle.
Defending your homeland with a sword or spear is vastly different than using high explosives and giant sailing vessels, submarines and the like. I think that if he saw what was happening right now he might amend some of his earlier opinions on the matter.
And then there is the matter of his thoughts about the 'end times' coming during, or shortly after his lifetime. I guess we're still working on assuring that this happens.
Posted by ficheye at 04/03/2009 @ 7:01pm
This thing about Jesus of Nazarath gnaws at me.
I just don't see how he could have been prescient to the extent that he could foresee Atomic weapons, predator drones, cluster bombs, etc., not to mention the ongoing and eternal jewish struggle.
Defending your homeland with a sword or spear is vastly different than using high explosives and giant sailing vessels, submarines and the like. I think that if he saw what was happening right now he might amend some of his earlier opinions on the matter.
And then there is the matter of his thoughts about the 'end times' coming during, or shortly after his lifetime. I guess we're still working on assuring that this happens.
Posted by ficheye at 04/03/2009 @ 7:01pm
The answer is quite clear. Jesus was and is G-d.
John 1:1-3 and vs 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
In John 8, Jesus identifies Himself to the Pharisees as the same YHWH who appeared to Abraham and Moses
56Your forefather Abraham was extremely happy at the hope and prospect of seeing My day (My incarnation); and he did see it and was delighted.(C)
57Then the Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?
58Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM (YHWH)
Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 7:11pm
There is so much ambiguity in all of those verses.
The many, many differing faiths have their various translations of those words you quote, in particular the statement of I AM, taken to mean a great many things, including the thought that we are ALL sons of god and have god in us, that we are not just children of god.
There is the speaking in tongues; the handling of serpents; the complete reinvention by the Mormons and their belief that Joseph Smith would actually sit with Jesus and God himself, a curious and vain concept on its face, a true testament to our self centered nature.
And then there is the fact that Origen declared that some of the original biblical manuscripts were to be edited of some statements that Jesus made regarding reincarnation as well, and the disregarded books that have been found since the assembly of the 'original' bible, and the arbitrary inclusion of the revelations.
All of these reinventions and differing beliefs point to a philosophical morass, which in the end, being not resolvable by any action other than blind faith, may invalidate ANY concept that seeks to assign any certain and final meaning to the ongoing and ever changing concept of western christianity.
WE are. I am that I am. One with the all. I return to that from which I came, and will return by that avenue to begin again as I am now, and then will return and begin again forever. I believe that is what he was telling us, a circular concept, not a linear and finite proposition where the end is coming, and even that we must yearn for it. He knew not of the revelations. You wait for the end. I return to the beginning, where there is no end.
"I do not concern myself with gods and spirits either good or evil nor do I serve any." Lao Tzu
Posted by ficheye at 04/03/2009 @ 8:26pm
Obama is obviously a highly intelligent and deeply compassionate man. Why is he trying to sell an illusion of achievable military - nation building goals in Afghanistan in 2009? Has he talked to Putin or Medvev about the terrible cost to the USSR when they tried to occupy and control this land? Soviet Republic was ultimately bankrupted by their own futile war in Afghanistan.
Who is advising Obama on these foreign policy and military issues? What is going on?
Afghanistan has been a meat grinder of invading forces for centuries. I hope Obama wises up about this PDQ.
Fix the economy, health care, education and gun control. Rest of the world poses no serious military threat to security of the United States.
Posted by guytar at 04/04/2009 @ 3:53pm
While I certainly admire MacArthur as an officer and military leader, I have no idea what his political views were.--------Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:27pm
I don't think you'd like them....
"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.
While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war."---Douglas MacArthur
Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 07:41am
and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war."---Douglas MacArthur Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 07:41am
Really, really good find Mask. Excellent!
Posted by ficheye at 04/05/2009 @ 10:58am
<i>Posted by ficheye at 04/03/2009 @ 8:26pm </i>
Though your reflection is no doubt profound, it seems to also spring from an unwarranted leap in logic. Certainly there have been different interpretations and understandings of various verses, but your conclusion of complete uncertainty does not follow from that fact for two reasons. First, there are many verses that are also NOT ambiguous, and thus do not admit to the kind of interpretations that you list off. Second, regarding verses that ARE potentially ambiguous, the answer isn't to just discard them entirely, any more than you would discard inquiry about the beginning of the universe because there's extensive disagreement about it. Granted, not all uncertainty is automatically resolveable, but that doesn't mean that all uncertainty should be treated as UNresolveable. Difference of opinion does not entail that whatever position you take is simply "blind faith," as you put it. To the extent that you can, you see what explanation makes the most logical sense, and ONLY after that fails can you be even REMOTELY justified in saying "the answer must come from 'blind faith' alone."
Posted by Thrawn at 04/05/2009 @ 11:53am
Posted by ficheye at 04/05/2009 @ 10:58am
Righties like lvlib usually like MacArthur (cuz he tried to push around a Democrat), but he had the same fear of the MIC as Ike did.
Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 12:55pm
Righties like lvlib usually like MacArthur (cuz he tried to push around a Democrat), but he had the same fear of the MIC as Ike did.
Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 12:55pm
Like so many on the left, you love to distort Ike's speech, which calls this MIC, necessary.
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.... We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
http://tinyurl.com/97d9d
Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 1:58pm
Mask, neither you nor any other leftist ever quotes Ike on the concern that he said was equal to that of the MIC- scholars paid by the Fed govt for research.
Will you rail against Fed contracts and grants for research also?
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 2:01pm
hey Mask,
How come you and the other lefties never quote this part of his speech?
"You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals."
Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 2:06pm
So you agree with ALL of Ike's speech, Larry?
I do.
And what about MacArthur's quote?
Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 3:04pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 1:58pm </i>
Your response isn't fully responsive. Ike made 2 claims:
1) An MIC is necessary in the current world
2) We really shouldn't let the MIC get too much influence
(2) and (1) are clearly not mutually exclusive by any means, and I think that's Mask's point. Unless I'm reading him wrong, he's not saying that the whole NOTION of a military-industrial complex is bad, he's saying that it shouldn't be allowed to corrupt our republican decision-making process. Like Mask, I think he's clearly right about that, and given that he was a key WWII commander, I think he's got some pretty good background to stand on as well.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/05/2009 @ 3:14pm
So you agree with ALL of Ike's speech, Larry?
I do.
And what about MacArthur's quote?
Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 3:04pm
You agree that it's necessary to have a large military?
You agree with his fear of Fed spending on R&D?
You agree with his desire to see all nations under G-d?
As to Mac-I said I didn't know anything about his politics.
While not all generals can be good politicians, very few non veteran presidents can be good commander-in-chiefs.
More on Mac to follow
Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 3:18pm
From Gen MacArthur's letter to Congress 1951
Indeed, the second day of September, 1945, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:
‘Men, since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations...but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful.
‘Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by war of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all the material and cultural developments of the past 2,000 years.
‘It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.
‘But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.
‘In war indeed there can be no substitute for victory.'
There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier wars. It points to no single instance where this end has justified the means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace.
http://tinyurl.com/d5xweh
Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 3:22pm
"You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals." Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 2:06pm
The 'Under god' part is the meat of this quote for you, I believe.
And then
"It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh. ‘But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision."
Again, 'the spirit' seems central here. Soldiers of god. And the Iraq war was forced upon us by who? George Bush, since none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Another avenue, but a valid one. We should have bombed Arabia and Egypt if logic dictated action.
You've got a serious litany of 'yeah, but' provisions for whatever comes your way, I'll give you that. But central to the point is always implied or overt assertions that 'God made me do it' or 'God directed us to do it".
Flip Wilson, however would be more correct in HIS assertion... "The devil made me do it". And do it we did... I feel a song coming on, and it's not the one about christian soldiers! (Yes, yes...AS to war, ponti).
Posted by ficheye at 04/05/2009 @ 10:15pm