The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

America at Perpetual War — is there any way out? Options
Luftmarque
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:57:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,120
Neurons: 30,222
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
Having just read this:
The Lost Promise of Barack Obama, by Paul Rosenberg, Al Jazeera English
—about the continuation of the "policy of perpetual war" that we Americans sustain in the Obama years, which of course excuses trampling on the Constitution in the name of military expediency,

after having caught up on this yesterday:
The Force: How Much Military is Enough?, by Jill Lepore, The New Yorker Jan 28th
—which highlights the truly obscene amount of wealth the US dumps into military spending, currently greater than the rest of the world put together, while our children go undereducated, our vets go homeless, and our infrastructure rusts (how far we have devolved from what Josiah Quincy wrote in 1774, “What a deformed monster is a standing army in a free nation.")

I am profoundly depressed. Does anybody have any ideas about how to get off this particular Highway to Hell? I have long believed that the US could, easily, tend to its own defense on a budget of 1/5 of the current military spending. But that would mean giving up the ability to "project force" anywhere in the world that our "vital interests" (read oil) are threatened, and settling into a lesser status as just one nation among the rest, no longer able to always "have it our way." And then, of course, we might "lose" another country like we "lost China" (news to the Chinese of course that they were ours to lose). I don't know where to start. Any help? Please?



}- Luftmarque لوفتمارك -{ Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.—Voltaire
Absurdicuss
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:06:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
Without reading your post, only the thread topic may I offer a resounding NO. Perpetual war is one of the tools used by NWO cabal to bring to fruition there plan for world governance as outlined in the UN Agenda 21, published in 1984 (didn't someone write a book).

The Hegelian dialectic at work Professor. I'm sure you can comment further and in more detail on this so I defer to you.

Now I'll read your post

"Now" is the eternal present.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:22:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
I recommend that the only solution to our dilemma can be found in this quote from Abraham Lincoln:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.


We are hurdling headlong toward a fascist police state. FEMA has just graduated it's first battalion of 2500 DHS security forces, with nary a word in the "free press". I wonder from which of our fine institutions of learning where they recruited? Reform schools, youth prisons?
Giving disaffected youth an opportunity to redeem themselves through loyalty to the state is perfect. Automatons with machine guns.

It has been reported and substantiated as fact that DHS & FEMA have been amassing billions, yes billions of rounds of ammunition. All of this while elements of our government conduct tireless efforts to disarm "We the People"

There is something sinister in the air folks...look up...it's a drone!

"Now" is the eternal present.
Luftmarque
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:43:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,120
Neurons: 30,222
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
Interesting that someone can read my OP and work it into coherence with a worldview 180° out-of-phase with my own, if I accurately decode it to mean support for the idea that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution has anything to do with individual gun ownership‡ and that the framers of the Const. were so schizophrenic that they would combine a definition of treason as "levying war against the United States" with a guarantee that anybody who chose to do so would have access to the tools for the job. I may have just been hoisted on my own petard.

‡ of course, I recognize that I am among the last remaining five or so Americans who don't believe this, everybody else having heard "2nd amendment rights" so many times that they assume the issue to have been settled long, long ago.

}- Luftmarque لوفتمارك -{ Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.—Voltaire
Absurdicuss
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 5:29:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
you talkin to me? (De Niro voice for dramatic affect)

yeah..it's amazing ain't it, how my response, as it turns out, opposes yours while maintaining coherence.

It may be due to the difficulties we humans encounter when selecting from what we know in our minds to that which we area able to articulate in words. Which may be an indictment of your eloquence as well as my comprehension. (smiley face goes here)

I'm not attributing any such schizo mind set to the Const. writers. But I am paranoid about whats going on in the here and now.
Perhaps they were too, writing this in as a possible safeguard for the governed. And I'm not saying that the did that.

Don't read into my posts Professor. I'm not that deep, usually trying to express myself in direct terms.

I'm not trying to twist what you've said, only responding with my own opinion.

And your residence among a minority, if true, does not invalidate your position in my ethos.

But...I feel.

We need to believe in the right to gun ownership because the government is a terrifying behemoth that has transformed from securer inalienable rights to grantor.

It really comes down to a scenario in which I may have to kill or be killed.


Remember that I'm a blue collar outsider with more opinions than knowledge.

But how bout the Lincoln quote?

All of this has nothing to do with your OP. Ever notice that digression in discourse only occurs when people talk?

"Now" is the eternal present.
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 5:38:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,020
Neurons: 74,465
Sorry Mark, not much help here, I haven't been able to think of a practical solution to this problem in years. I think the last time I really believed there was a solution was in 1969, and that failed miserably. President Eisenhower certainly could not been more right in warning the American people of the military industrial complex, and the type of threat it was to the future.

I think the "war on terror" is a detestable trap, and has a bad way, as the gentleman in the first article pointed out, of creating more enemies than it eliminates.
Maybe, just a very thin maybe, if we were to demand that countries that aare currently used as bases for terrorist organizations, were told, we're finished with playing policeman in your country, apart from intelligence gathering, we are pulling out completely. Eliminate this threat to the countries of the world, or you're cut off, no more foreign aid from anybody, no foreign investment...yea not workable.

It's an insane feedback situation, if we could stop the terror attacks, we could stop the war on terror, but even in an ideal world, if we stopped the war on terror, the terror attacks would not stop immediately. Even if we threw everything we had into winning hearts and minds, some terror attacks would still happen and we'd have people screaming for blood again.

Quote:
For What It's Worth
Buffalo Springfield 1967

There's something happinin here
what it is aint exactly clear
theres a man with a gun over there
tellin me i got to beware

i think it's time we stop, children
what's that sound
everybody look what's goin down

there's battle lines being drawn
nobody's right if everybody's wrong
young people speakin there minds
getting so much resistance far behind

it's time we stop,
hey what's that sound
everybody look what's goin down


Something, I think could be done, but it would require that everyone look at what's going down, and then demanding it stop. Which I think would take no less than practically a revolution, or at the very least immediate enactment of strict term limits, and a nationalization of all military arms manufacturing. Take the profit out of death.


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Absurdicuss
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:17:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
adding to "the profit out of death" it is no surprise then to you guys that international bankers always profit from war and seek to maintain the illusion of threat to national/international interests to perpetuate their world vision.

Is it too much to believe that the global elite, who are able (by virtue of immense wealth) to operate by proxy, are solidly behind promoting much of the world's misery?

They are behind the dialectic that is the genesis of our state of permanent war; the solution of which will be the implementation of the UN Agenda 21.

"Now" is the eternal present.
Newagenda
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:56:37 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/27/2012
Posts: 196
Neurons: 1,957
I don't know a whole hell lot of the American's mind. I believe we can stop the war, making things better, living in peace, lerning another language, especially English by reading topics here. But..we can't change anything before we can change our perception.

A captian of a lead battleship saw sos from a mile away in the middle of the sea as it said ' go right 30 degrees.' The captain didn't catch a drift but sent sos back to the unknown source of sos he just received, 'get out of my way! I am a battle ship and YOU better make it a snap! And.. the unknown sos flashes back a short message that says: " I am a light house".

excaelis
Posted: Sunday, February 24, 2013 2:12:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,981
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The Pax Americana was never tenable. Noble, but just impossible to maintain. Where to go from here? Yeeeesh, better minds than mine have foundered.

Sanity is not statistical
Luftmarque
Posted: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:02:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,120
Neurons: 30,222
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
excaelis wrote:
The Pax Americana was never tenable. Noble, but just impossible to maintain.

Yet the majority (of politicians, if not the population) go blithely on as if it were not only tenable, and the "natural order of things," but perfectible—perhaps we just need more drones, then we'll all be safe and happy.

}- Luftmarque لوفتمارك -{ Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.—Voltaire
TL Hobs
Posted: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:11:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,392
Neurons: 5,531
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States

The ONLY way to end a war is to put down the guns and quit shooting.

We need to bring home our troops and leave the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to settle their issues themselves, without interference from outside interests.

Look at Vietnam as an example. We left, the war ended and the people came to some resolution about how to live together.

The US defense department is bloated with too much money to spend. Arms dealers worldwide are as much to blame as anyone else for propagating war.

IMHO

"When you don't know where you are going, you have to stick together just in case someone gets there." - Ken Kesey
Absurdicuss
Posted: Monday, February 25, 2013 4:40:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
Dammit Hobs, you've crystallized my thoughts to an exact quotation.

Our Navy is now an international global force for good!

The more things unravel the smarter Ron Paul looks to me.

"Now" is the eternal present.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:25:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 41,657
Neurons: 404,856
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Absurdicuss wrote:

Our Navy is now an international global force for good!


Actually, after the Big Tsunami hit the South Asian countries back in 2004, the biggest helper was U.S. Navy. Surprised?


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:47:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
Not at all surprised JJ as US power projection includes humanitarian missions. Plus we have the world's only floating hospital (ain't that a shame).
Our heavy lift capacity, aircraft carriers with their medical staff, is an amazingly efficient tool that can be brought in to relieve suffering.

What you bring up makes me a proud American that we can do good, yet humble that our nation has been entrusted with such great power.

Philanthropy is the greatest attribute of civilization: Love thy neighbor.

My alarm at the global force doctrine is over use of military power. I am a borderline isolationist, believing that nations ought to be free from invasion.
If Iran wants to build a bomb who are we to say "no, you can't"? Just like the United States, the perceived benefits of using nukes are vastly outweighed by the consequences.

This may be a poor example as Ahmadinejad has declared, clearly, his intent to nuke Israel in order to begin the worldwide calamity that will usher in the last and greatest Caliphate of the Grand Imam, in which the whole world bows to Islam or dies.

So never mind that example.

Long as you understand the angle.

"Now" is the eternal present.
Tovarish
Posted: Monday, February 25, 2013 6:35:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
I am pretty sure by now most forum members know my feelings on the US-Australian Alliance.

If the United Nations/NATO played a more forceful roll internationally, would the US and Allied Forces have to fill the military void??

The cost of sending fighting forces to these goat tracks is enormous, be they strategically placed goat tracks or not.

Afghanistan broke the Soviets, don't we ever learn from history, or do we (collective) have such lofty opinions of our White Knight status?

Blooper
Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:15:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 839
Neurons: 2,292
Location: South Borneo
I am wondering when Ahmadinejad is no longer the President of Iran, will people still use "write Israel off the map" card?
Seriousleh, people have mentioned it million times but still no sign of progress from Ahmadinejad.
Even North Korea have done several missile test.


"Wherever ye are, death will find you out, even if ye are in towers built up strong and high!" (An-Nisa':78)
Tovarish
Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 5:52:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
'Small Man Syndrome' I think Bloop, big rockets are a phallic symbol.
Tovarish
Posted: Friday, March 1, 2013 9:13:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Well that comment killed the discussion stone dead, interesting.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Saturday, March 2, 2013 8:52:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
The answer to your question Blooper, may be in whether or not Ahmadinejad, who bears a striking cartoonish resemblance to some fiendish mouse like character, succeeds in assembling and launching a nuclear device against Israel.

This, he has proclaimed, is his destiny; to initiate the final conflict, which will usher in the age of the global caliphate, under the theocratic dictates of the grand Imam.

Similar to the rest of the world's power structures Iran is run by a super powerful elite cabal who exercise the ability to manipulate public fears through a network of layered intelligence operatives.

The Persian/Iranian peoples have tended to be much less theocratic than the Arab nations around them, especially over the past 100 years. Even now there is believed to exist an underground opposition to the tyrannic rule of the Revolutionary Party now in power.

So who knows what the future holds, unless you believe in the Bible and recognize it's inerrant prophetic accuracy.


The world as we know it is changing fast; lining up in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. The EU, the UN, the upward funneling of power into fewer hands. Technological advances that make life easier also make it easier for governments to track us wherever we go. All of this is, of course, designed to protect us from the various contrived threats.

The title of this thread is one headline in a continuing global process that planners hope will culminate in one world government.

The aspirations of the global elite have been documented on the once mighty U.S. Dollar Bill in symbol and motto.

Annuit Coeptus - He Approves Our Undertaking
Novus Ordo Seclorum - New Order of the Ages
E Pluribus Unum - Out of Many One


The all seeing eye, as if divine, watches carefully as minions shepherd humanity towards the goal of global tyranny.

Everywhere these forces promote ideas that appear to be for the public good, and sound reasonable but their end is enslavement to an all encompassing state in which freedoms, inalienable rights, are merely privileges to be granted according to the ruling elite.

"Now" is the eternal present.
dusty
Posted: Saturday, March 2, 2013 11:50:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
Oh boy, that was some article, and it is a shame because I normally like the writers work under a different pen name. And yes, it's become a enormous problem, and it's time to get rid of the politicians in politics.

If you can here the author's tone, of anti-Obama, no matter what he does, you scare me. As long as I live I will never understand nor be able to trust will equates to "I cannot take seriously" the opinions of a person who will attack simply for who is the person taken action.

I cannot trust a politician or just a political pundit, whose despise Obama would be suddenly singing praise for identical acts if it were Mit Romney, Rubio, or any other Republican who keep that 1% tax increase from happening but will give 10% to the church so long as they keep fighting the good fight and make sure god sends fags to hell, ignore global warming, ignore the environment all together, Christian millionaires live in a building not a forrest, to them out of sight is out of mind and the liberals are muslim terrorists if they are worried about something they can't immediately see, they need govt. telling them how they cannot poison the earth, we cann just clean it up after the fact, even things like the BP deep water ain't no thang, done, cleaned, we don't need the freeloaded entitlement 47% marrying people, they are the reason for the world going to hell in a handbasket.

They just can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot can they, as if the above runon isn't enough now they have to take it into the war.

"The Bush/Obama war" oh boy, that line is about as brilliant as Romney claiming Obama wants "trickled down" taxes.

When are the reds going to try devising some policies instead of insulting the public as if Latinos will vote for Rubio because he speaks Spanish even though he doesn't give a damn about people who don't take home half a million a year because if you pay taxes with every pay check, you're a chump in his eyes, whose money do the chumps think gets to play with to make his kiling?

So no, people will not vote for the next Republican just because they Associate Obama with Bush II wars, if anything they will NOT vote Republican simply because of their sabotage of the Govt in Congress and the House.

I can't respect anyone will trash talk our Country, but NOT in the name of fixing it , but to get a red party member elected as chief executive.

It's not patriotic, it's UNpatriotic it's inhuman to not give a crap about people lives and rights, and if the author did give a crap, or any of the GOP ad Boehner's sabotage squad gave a crap that would quit being politicians for one God damned term and DO SOMETHING to make it better, they could start by ditching that all outdated govt. bylaw which is never ever admit to anything.

We messed up, and nothing pisses of the people you wronged more than pretending it had to be done.

If Rosenburg honestly carred about the innocent families who are getting slaughtered by drone attacks, he wouls drop out of the republican slander payroll team, and get the word out to Our Muslim Brothers, Sisters, Cousin, Aunt, Uncles and help our Christian Brothers, Sisters, etc family to stand together because it looks like we cannot trust the govt. to ever do what is morally right, and it is looking increasingly like The People will have to put a stop to this madness because so long as the republicans can gross 700 thousand and not pay taxes, they are going to do it if we let them. Doesn't matter who's killed by drone attacks, so long as it's not them, doesn't matter which ocean becomes a toxic oil pit so long as it isn't theirs.

We may need to step up before they tear down the whole god damned world like a mountain mined for it gravel

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
dusty
Posted: Saturday, March 2, 2013 5:15:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
uh! oh! the republican truckers have started to move!

Seems I have off-ended one with mod or admin privies

Typo: should have read: " If you can't hear the authors tone"

this is beginning to remind me of the interwebs of yore and the peculiar edits...

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
Tovarish
Posted: Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:57:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Little Mr Dinnerjacket wants to be the first Iranian into space, wonderful idea, just a one way ticket would be great.


The Most Handsome Man in the World, little Kimmy hasn't thought of that yet.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:57:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
Tov,you and Dusty have lost me in this thread. As usual I'm missing something

"Now" is the eternal present.
Tovarish
Posted: Saturday, March 2, 2013 8:18:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
To make it clearer Abs, Dusty is the serious one and I am the Smart Arse.

I have an over allocation of Aussie Political Skepticism, and hopefully equal parts Aussie humour.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Sunday, March 3, 2013 2:18:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
So, you prefer to visualize Mr. mouse like Dinner Jacket all spiffed up for his one way flight eh? Sounds like a great farewell party to me.

"Now" is the eternal present.
Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, March 3, 2013 2:31:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
I'll bring the baloons to give him extra lift off, and the shoe horn to get the other bloke into the rocket.
Klaas V
Posted: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:07:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/12/2010
Posts: 1,341
Neurons: 4,802
Detroit, Michigan March 2013

About 3.5 years ago (written in 2006)

(Pro)Fedde Le Grand



With maybe the exception of the unasked there just isn't such thing available as a dumb question - Z4us
Geeman
Posted: Sunday, March 3, 2013 3:30:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,788
Neurons: 124,562
Location: Whittier, California, United States
When it comes to the defense budget, I've been arguing for a long time that we've completely lost track of reality. I do think the U.S. should spend more money than any other nation, but I don't think we need 11 super aircraft carriers. I don't think we need a secret, low-orbit, mach 7 (or so) spy craft. I don't think we need the Osprey. Furthermore, the vast majority of government funding for military R&D should be eliminated. R&D is the provenance of inventors and innovators, and big bags of money don't really aid that process. It really just results in a kind of "bureaucratic department of patent adaptation" that has very little value from a cost-benefit POV.

However, when it comes to the endless military conflict, I think we're getting to a point where it will end. From what I've read, the average counter-insurgency war, last about 9 years. (Sorry, folks, I don't have a reference for that. It's one of those factoids that fell into my brainmeat from my military history reading, and I can't recall at this stage where I read it.)

When it comes to Afghanistan, I think we have to recognize that one of the reasons for the length of that conflict is that, by design or incompetence, the war was fought with no real interest in victory by the American leadership. The Bush/Cheney doctrine appears to have been very close to the perpetual war ideology as interpreted by a corporate board of directors. Effectively, those years "don't count" as part of the war, since they were really nothing more than an extended holding action.

Obama changed that, and the end of the conflict appears to be in sight. What will remain of that country after America pulls out remains to be seen, but as an active, shooting war it will likely be over. I can't say for sure, but my guess would be that we'll get a few decades (at least a generation) of tribal/clan conflict in various incarnations, with a more or less constant state of aggression. It's going to take a generation or three for a broad range of education and social changes to take effect.
Tovarish
Posted: Thursday, March 7, 2013 7:35:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
I posted this on another Topic, but 'The most Hansome man in the World', is going to nuke the US, and he has the rest of us covered too.

Yesterday he was going to negate the cease fire agreement with South Korea, and today he is going to bomb us.

The sad thing is he probably has the capabilities to do some damage to his neighbours.

Tovarish
Posted: Friday, March 8, 2013 9:51:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Sorry for bringing this up again US members, but I am concerned of your opinions on the Korean situation.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Friday, March 8, 2013 11:40:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
Hey Gee, Tov,

Thomas Jefferson said the only thing more dangerous than a standing army was a central bank. Now we've had both in the US since WW2.

Have you guys ever listened to the JFK speech that got him killed? It is startling, I mean spine tingling! He was assassinated 7 days later.

Go to youtube, type in "the speech that got JFK killed". Afterwards I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I believe that JFK was the last noble president of our time.

Also look up Hegelian dialectic.

All of these threats we face - Korea, Jihadists, Communism may be but subplots in a grand scheme who's aim is global supremacy.

The North Koreans:
They occupy a tiny nonstrategic sliver of eastern Asia. So what if they get a nuke. They may get to use one, once, then Pyongyang becomes a smoking crater and Kim Jong-Un knows it.

The Afghans must like things the way they are, it's been that way for 2 thousand years.

These crises serve as distraction from the underlying multi-generational, global conspiracy to enslave whats left of humanity.

First comes disarmament of the people then a gradual tightening until liberty is but an imaginary concept.


"Now" is the eternal present.
Tovarish
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2013 12:01:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Kimmy reminds me of a little fat kid, jumping up and down saying "Notice me, notice me!".

He doesn't seem to realise he is playing with the big boys and girls who have bigger toys.

I will search youtube for JFK speech, he for me is the last true Statesman in modern history.

almostfreebird
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2013 12:08:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/22/2011
Posts: 2,820
Neurons: 7,024
Location: Japan
Absurdicuss wrote:
Hey Gee, Tov,

Thomas Jefferson said the only thing more dangerous than a standing army was a central bank. Now we've had both in the US since WW2.

Have you guys ever listened to the JFK speech that got him killed? It is startling, I mean spine tingling! He was assassinated 7 days later.

Go to youtube, type in "the speech that got JFK killed". Afterwards I'd like to hear your thoughts.






Found it.

http://www.youtube.com/The speech that got JFK killed


Tovarish
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2013 1:31:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,109
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
OK Abs, how do you think that speech got JFK assasinated?

Sounded to me like something JA may have wished he had said.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:17:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,871
Neurons: 29,776
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
Sorry for the slow response Tov. The President clearly all but mentioned the secret societies which now run most of the world by proxy through the many layers of the pyramid structure. This hierarchy of power is illustrated on the obverse of the US dollar.

Thirteen ascending steps narrow to a truncated top where a space between the physical and spiritual realm separates the global elite from The Worshipful Master, The Light Bearer, The God of this Age, The Prince of the Power of the Air, The Sun of God, The Deity.

JFK intended to denude the monolithic shadow structure, using the light of free speech in an open society to expose their globalist ambitions.

His announced intention to put America back on the silver certificate, yanking control over money from the Federal Reserve placing authority back into the hands of "We the People" of the US sealed his fate.

The Federal Reserve is only one of a global network of privately held central banks owned by the super global elite e.g. the Rothschilds, Warburg, Rockefellers that exert near total control over world affairs.

Their purpose, one world government, has been underway for over a century, and really as far back as the biblical account of Nimrod.


Read JFK's speech, research the wealth of the Vatican, Free Masonry, The Illuminati The Knights Templar, Mormonism, The Mystery Schools of Ancient Babylon and Egypt.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The President And The Press: Address Before The American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.









"Now" is the eternal present.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.