| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
4114 Dead
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
 |
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:22:17 -0700 (PDT), Jim Austin
<bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 6:21 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:36fc2d65-31d8-4f46-9b43-e9342c16b987@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 12:56 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:da6ef1ee-7a3d-45dd-b966-8ace0d5ceab8@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 9:39 am, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
A Note to the Peace Movement
By David Swanson
Created Jul 13 2008 - 10:58am
The peace movement has stood for peace and justice, for ending wars,
preventing new ones, and building peace.
No. The peace movement has stood for dictatorship and terrorism.
Actually, the GOP has stood for dictatorship and terrorism.
In the 1960s, the peace movement sided with the communist countries
against the United States.
Ronald Reagan's Crime Regime illegally supplied guns for a dictatorship in
direct defiance of the Unites States Congress.
A Democratic Congress did try to criminalize resistance to communist
aggression as they now try to criminalize resistance to terrorism.
U.S. Republicans sided with Hitler right up to the point of the beginning of WWII
and some of them even after learning of his murder of millions of innocent human
beings.
A lie.
Pacifists sided with Hitler before and all during World War II. Peace
movement types sought to disarm nations threatened by Nazi Germany
before the war and undermine the effort during the war.
Don't try to sell me on the right wing's having clean hands
Peace movements side with aggressors. They share the guilt of
aggression.
|
You might want to try to acquaint yourself with history there, Jimmy
boy.
There was no organized peace movement in the United States in 1943.
Prior to that, there were isolationists, led by Senator Vandenburg, a
Republican. And yes, the California AFB is named for him. The
Republicans and the German-American bund preached a "hands off Europe"
approach to the war prior to Pearl Harbor, even opposing lend-lease.
There WERE groups opposed to the war, of course. The Quakers, the
Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Seventh Day Adventists. But if you think
they "sided with the agressor" and shared their guilt, then you might
reflect on the fact that by the thousands, they stood and refused to
fight in Germany, too, and by the thousands, they were exterminated in
Hitler's death camps.
By trying to associate such people with Hitler, you are insulting
people who were by far your moral superiors.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
In article <2312d960-ca6f-45e1-a7d2-60d8a8ab594a@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Jim Austin <bja@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Ronald Reagan's Crime Regime illegally supplied guns for a dictatorship in
direct defiance of the Unites States Congress.
A Democratic Congress did try to criminalize resistance to communist
aggression as they now try to criminalize resistance to terrorism.
|
reagan signed the law
why cant he obey laws he signed?
| Quote: |
Don't try to sell me on the right wing's having clean hands
Peace movements side with aggressors. They share the guilt of
aggression.
|
so youre denouncing christianity
arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:15 am Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:02:57 -0700, 4114 Dead
<zepp22114114@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:12:22 -0700, nospam@noway.net (Ralph) wrote:
4114 Dead <zepp22114114@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:50:37 -0700, nospam@noway.net (Ralph) wrote:
Gandalf Grey <valinor20@gmail.com> wrote:
We can still work against recruitment, we can still educate, we can still
agitate,
You mean make the war difficut so that more of our soldiers die.
Say no to war unless a democrat is president.
WAR!! WAR!! DEMOCRATS AND WAAAAR!!!!
(the DRAFT included!!)
World War I - 1917 - 116,708 KIA - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
And won by a Democrat.
I thought that was a draw and the US was a minor player. And as it
turned out, since the Lusatania was found divers have discovered she was
carrying a considerable amount of munitions which means her sinking was
justified which means Woodrow Wilson lied us into World War II.
France and England won quite convincingly. America played a
relatively minor role.
|
We have to excuse Zepp from historical discussions... He was out
driving around drunk in the California mountains when the rest of his
high school class was in history class....
"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and tearing
around in the mountains of Central California."
--Zepp Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en& |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lamont Cranston
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
| Quote: |
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
4114 Dead wrote:
Korean War - 1950 - 54,246 KIA - Harry S.
Truman -
Democrat
Lost by a Republican.
How do you figure that Korea was lost?
Vietnam War - 1965 - 58,159 KIA - Lyndon B.
Johnson -
Democrat
Lost by a Republican.
Lost by the Media and a Democrat Congress.
There was no "Democrat Congress."
Which party controlled the Congress from 1970-1975?
The Democratic Party.
Then we had a Democrat Congress.
No, we had Democratic Congress. (Actually we had a
Congress with a
Democratic majority.)
Same thing.
The bottom line is that it was the American left and the
media which
lost us Vietnam, In my opinion.
The bottom line is we should never have been in Vietnam
to begin
with. It's the same bottom line as with Iraq.
You may be correct, but as of right now, I am not
convinced.
The reason that we lost in Vietnam is that the American
people
finally realized that we should never have been there.
The
justification for being there, the Domino Theory, was a
fraud, just
as Iraq's possession of WMDs was a fraud.
We lost in Vietnam because Joihnson did not have the spine
to do the
Job properly, which is the same reason North Korea is
still a
separate nation.
|
Nonsense. Johnson had nothing to do with the Korean War.
| Quote: |
had Truman and Johnson done what they should have, Korea
would have
been united in 1953, and Vietnam would have been united
under a freely
elected government by 1968.
|
More nonsense. Uniting North and South Vietnam was not the
objective of the Vietnam War. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lamont Cranston
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
znuybv wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 9:31 am, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com
wrote:
"Ralph" <nos...@noway.net> wrote in message
news:1ik2w8l.kzf2vv1mx7ncyN%nospam@noway.net...
Gandalf Grey <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
We can still work against recruitment, we can still
educate, we
can still agitate,
You mean make the war difficut so that more of our
soldiers die.
The GOP is doing all it can to make sure that as many
soldiers die as
humanly possible.
If that were true you would be their biggest supporter.
|
Different day, same old strawmen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Hartung
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
Lamont Cranston wrote:
| Quote: |
David Hartung wrote:
had Truman and Johnson done what they should have, Korea would have
been united in 1953, and Vietnam would have been united under a freely
elected government by 1968.
More nonsense. Uniting North and South Vietnam was not the objective of
the Vietnam War.
|
Had Johnson made victory the goal in Vietnam, as he should have, we
would have overrun North Vietnam, and the war would have been over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lamont Cranston
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
| Quote: |
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
had Truman and Johnson done what they should have, Korea
would have
been united in 1953, and Vietnam would have been united
under a
freely elected government by 1968.
More nonsense. Uniting North and South Vietnam was not
the
objective of the Vietnam War.
Had Johnson made victory the goal in Vietnam, as he should
have, we
would have overrun North Vietnam, and the war would have
been over.
|
Overrunning North Vietnam was not the objective of the
Vietnam war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Hartung
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
Lamont Cranston wrote:
| Quote: |
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
had Truman and Johnson done what they should have, Korea would have
been united in 1953, and Vietnam would have been united under a
freely elected government by 1968.
More nonsense. Uniting North and South Vietnam was not the
objective of the Vietnam War.
Had Johnson made victory the goal in Vietnam, as he should have, we
would have overrun North Vietnam, and the war would have been over.
Overrunning North Vietnam was not the objective of the Vietnam war.
|
yes I know, that was a part of the problem.
You end aggression by defeating the aggressor, which almost always means
occupying the aggressor's territory.
Johnson was afraid that if he overran North Vietnam, that the Soviets
would have entered the war. As a result, he killed a lot of American men
and accomplished nothing.
Once again, if our government is not willing to do whatever it takes to
achieve victory, then that government has no business sending our
fighting men and women into harm's way. Johnson did not have this
commitment, and that is what cost us the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lamont Cranston
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
| Quote: |
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
had Truman and Johnson done what they should have,
Korea would
have been united in 1953, and Vietnam would have been
united
under a freely elected government by 1968.
More nonsense. Uniting North and South Vietnam was not
the
objective of the Vietnam War.
Had Johnson made victory the goal in Vietnam, as he
should have, we
would have overrun North Vietnam, and the war would have
been over.
Overrunning North Vietnam was not the objective of the
Vietnam war.
yes I know, that was a part of the problem.
You end aggression by defeating the aggressor, which
almost always
means occupying the aggressor's territory.
Johnson was afraid that if he overran North Vietnam, that
the Soviets
would have entered the war. As a result, he killed a lot
of American
men and accomplished nothing.
|
I suspect that had the Soviets entered the war, many more
Americans would have been killed without anything being
accomplished.
| Quote: |
Once again, if our government is not willing to do
whatever it takes
to achieve victory, then that government has no business
sending our
fighting men and women into harm's way. Johnson did not
have this
commitment, and that is what cost us the war.
|
The objective of the war was to stop the spread of Communism
in Southeast Asia. Because that premise was a fantasy,
whether we won or lost was immaterial. We lost and
Communism did not spread. So, even though we lost, we
achieved the objective of victory. Having achieved the
objective of victory, we can now declare that we won.
Without a valid reason to be at war, war becomes ridiculous.
Such is the case now in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Hartung
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
Lamont Cranston wrote:
| Quote: |
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
had Truman and Johnson done what they should have, Korea would
have been united in 1953, and Vietnam would have been united
under a freely elected government by 1968.
More nonsense. Uniting North and South Vietnam was not the
objective of the Vietnam War.
Had Johnson made victory the goal in Vietnam, as he should have, we
would have overrun North Vietnam, and the war would have been over.
Overrunning North Vietnam was not the objective of the Vietnam war.
yes I know, that was a part of the problem.
You end aggression by defeating the aggressor, which almost always
means occupying the aggressor's territory.
Johnson was afraid that if he overran North Vietnam, that the Soviets
would have entered the war. As a result, he killed a lot of American
men and accomplished nothing.
I suspect that had the Soviets entered the war, many more Americans
would have been killed without anything being accomplished.
|
You may well be correct.
| Quote: |
Once again, if our government is not willing to do whatever it takes
to achieve victory, then that government has no business sending our
fighting men and women into harm's way. Johnson did not have this
commitment, and that is what cost us the war.
The objective of the war was to stop the spread of Communism in
Southeast Asia. Because that premise was a fantasy, whether we won or
lost was immaterial. We lost and Communism did not spread. So, even
though we lost, we achieved the objective of victory. Having achieved
the objective of victory, we can now declare that we won. Without a
valid reason to be at war, war becomes ridiculous. Such is the case now
in Iraq.
|
As I understand it, after we left Southeast Asia, but Laos and Cambodia
became communist.
That seems to me to mean that Communism spread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lamont Cranston
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
| Quote: |
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
had Truman and Johnson done what they should have,
Korea would
have been united in 1953, and Vietnam would have
been united
under a freely elected government by 1968.
More nonsense. Uniting North and South Vietnam was
not the
objective of the Vietnam War.
Had Johnson made victory the goal in Vietnam, as he
should have,
we would have overrun North Vietnam, and the war would
have been
over.
Overrunning North Vietnam was not the objective of the
Vietnam war.
yes I know, that was a part of the problem.
You end aggression by defeating the aggressor, which
almost always
means occupying the aggressor's territory.
Johnson was afraid that if he overran North Vietnam,
that the
Soviets would have entered the war. As a result, he
killed a lot of
American men and accomplished nothing.
I suspect that had the Soviets entered the war, many more
Americans
would have been killed without anything being
accomplished.
You may well be correct.
Once again, if our government is not willing to do
whatever it takes
to achieve victory, then that government has no business
sending our
fighting men and women into harm's way. Johnson did not
have this
commitment, and that is what cost us the war.
The objective of the war was to stop the spread of
Communism in
Southeast Asia. Because that premise was a fantasy,
whether we won
or lost was immaterial. We lost and Communism did not
spread. So,
even though we lost, we achieved the objective of
victory. Having
achieved the objective of victory, we can now declare
that we won.
Without a valid reason to be at war, war becomes
ridiculous. Such is
the case now in Iraq.
As I understand it, after we left Southeast Asia, but Laos
and
Cambodia became communist.
That seems to me to mean that Communism spread.
|
It didn't consume all of Southeast Asia as the Domino Theory
predicted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Hartung
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
Lamont Cranston wrote:
| Quote: |
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
had Truman and Johnson done what they should have, Korea would
have been united in 1953, and Vietnam would have been united
under a freely elected government by 1968.
More nonsense. Uniting North and South Vietnam was not the
objective of the Vietnam War.
Had Johnson made victory the goal in Vietnam, as he should have,
we would have overrun North Vietnam, and the war would have been
over.
Overrunning North Vietnam was not the objective of the Vietnam war.
yes I know, that was a part of the problem.
You end aggression by defeating the aggressor, which almost always
means occupying the aggressor's territory.
Johnson was afraid that if he overran North Vietnam, that the
Soviets would have entered the war. As a result, he killed a lot of
American men and accomplished nothing.
I suspect that had the Soviets entered the war, many more Americans
would have been killed without anything being accomplished.
You may well be correct.
Once again, if our government is not willing to do whatever it takes
to achieve victory, then that government has no business sending our
fighting men and women into harm's way. Johnson did not have this
commitment, and that is what cost us the war.
The objective of the war was to stop the spread of Communism in
Southeast Asia. Because that premise was a fantasy, whether we won
or lost was immaterial. We lost and Communism did not spread. So,
even though we lost, we achieved the objective of victory. Having
achieved the objective of victory, we can now declare that we won.
Without a valid reason to be at war, war becomes ridiculous. Such is
the case now in Iraq.
As I understand it, after we left Southeast Asia, but Laos and
Cambodia became communist.
That seems to me to mean that Communism spread.
It didn't consume all of Southeast Asia as the Domino Theory predicted.
|
Had the USA prevailed in Vietnam, it is likely that there wold have been
no spread of communism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Lamont Cranston
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
| Quote: |
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
had Truman and Johnson done what they should have,
Korea would
have been united in 1953, and Vietnam would have
been united
under a freely elected government by 1968.
More nonsense. Uniting North and South Vietnam was
not the
objective of the Vietnam War.
Had Johnson made victory the goal in Vietnam, as he
should have,
we would have overrun North Vietnam, and the war
would have been
over.
Overrunning North Vietnam was not the objective of
the Vietnam
war.
yes I know, that was a part of the problem.
You end aggression by defeating the aggressor, which
almost always
means occupying the aggressor's territory.
Johnson was afraid that if he overran North Vietnam,
that the
Soviets would have entered the war. As a result, he
killed a lot
of American men and accomplished nothing.
I suspect that had the Soviets entered the war, many
more Americans
would have been killed without anything being
accomplished.
You may well be correct.
Once again, if our government is not willing to do
whatever it
takes to achieve victory, then that government has no
business
sending our fighting men and women into harm's way.
Johnson did
not have this commitment, and that is what cost us the
war.
The objective of the war was to stop the spread of
Communism in
Southeast Asia. Because that premise was a fantasy,
whether we won
or lost was immaterial. We lost and Communism did not
spread. So,
even though we lost, we achieved the objective of
victory. Having
achieved the objective of victory, we can now declare
that we won.
Without a valid reason to be at war, war becomes
ridiculous. Such
is the case now in Iraq.
As I understand it, after we left Southeast Asia, but
Laos and
Cambodia became communist.
That seems to me to mean that Communism spread.
It didn't consume all of Southeast Asia as the Domino
Theory
predicted.
Had the USA prevailed in Vietnam, it is likely that there
wold have
been no spread of communism.
|
Highly unlikely. The implementation of Communism has
always required the consent of the people. The Communist
Party was firmly entrenched in both Laos and Cambodia for
years before the Vietnam conflict. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
Ralph <nospam@noway.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
4114 Dead <zepp22114114@finestplanet.com> wrote:
World War I - 1917 - 116,708 KIA - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
And won by a Democrat.
I thought that was a draw and the US was a minor player. And as it
turned out, since the Lusatania was found divers have discovered she was
carrying a considerable amount of munitions which means her sinking was
justified which means Woodrow Wilson lied us into World War II.
|
Woodrow Wilson lied us into World War I rather.
arg. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Falstaff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: A Note to the Peace Movement |
|
|
On Jul 15, 8:22 pm, Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 6:21 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:36fc2d65-31d8-4f46-9b43-e9342c16b987@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 12:56 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:da6ef1ee-7a3d-45dd-b966-8ace0d5ceab8@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 9:39 am, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
A Note to the Peace Movement
By David Swanson
Created Jul 13 2008 - 10:58am
The peace movement has stood for peace and justice, for ending wars,
preventing new ones, and building peace.
No. The peace movement has stood for dictatorship and terrorism.
Actually, the GOP has stood for dictatorship and terrorism.
In the 1960s, the peace movement sided with the communist countries
against the United States.
Ronald Reagan's Crime Regime illegally supplied guns for a dictatorship in
direct defiance of the Unites States Congress.
A Democratic Congress did try to criminalize resistance to communist
aggression as they now try to criminalize resistance to terrorism.
U.S. Republicans sided with Hitler right up to the point of the beginning of WWII
and some of them even after learning of his murder of millions of innocent human
beings.
A lie.
Pacifists sided with Hitler before and all during World War II. Peace
movement types sought to disarm nations threatened by Nazi Germany
before the war and undermine the effort during the war.
Don't try to sell me on the right wing's having clean hands
Peace movements side with aggressors. They share the guilt of
aggression
|
You mean like the Republican party of the 1930's that urged
pacifism and "neutrality" in the face of German and Japanese
aggression? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
