Obama And Other Great Democrat Presidents Of Peace

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Pa(b)st Prime, Oct 4, 2008.

  1. Another part of Kennedy's legacy was even more troublesome—support for South Vietnam in its bitter conflict with the north. Johnson positioned himself as less bellicose than Goldwater in the 1964 campaign, and his relative moderation was appealing to voters. But after the election, LBJ vastly escalated Kennedy's commitment from fewer than 20,000 U.S. troops to more than a half million.

    The 1964 campaign was also noteworthy because Democrats pioneered the kind of negativity that has become a staple of American politics ever since. They succeeded in scaring the country into opposing Goldwater, a conservative senator from Arizona who was portrayed as extremely far right and warlike. In one famous TV ad, the Johnson campaign showed a little girl in a flower-filled meadow. In the commercial, the girl suddenly looked up and a mushroom cloud appeared on the screen. Johnson's voice was then heard saying "These are the stakes"—an obvious suggestion that Goldwater would blunder into a nuclear war. The ad was so effective that it ran only once on network television. More than that seemed overkill to Johnson and his handlers.

    In the 1964 presidential campaign the incumbent, Democratic candidate Lyndon Johnson, repeatedly tried to convince voters that he had no intention of getting the United States involved in the conflict in Vietnam. However, according to historian John Morton Blum, Johnson "was already planning to expand that war." Johnson maintained his non-intervention position on Vietnam even after August 2, 1964, when North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched a supposedly unprovoked and unequivocal attack against the U.S. destroyer Maddox, which was on patrol in the Tonkin Gulf. When the ship was supposedly attacked two days later in the same vicinity, Johnson that evening announced that the U.S. would begin retaliatory air strikes against North Vietnam. Johnson subsequently asked Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which "supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

    As Daniel Ellsberg has recalled, LBJ misled the country in several ways. The attack was not unprovoked; the U.S. had recently shelled several of North Vietnam's islands in an operation run by the United States, code named 34A. Nor was the attack unequivocal; there was no second attack--the ship's radar had picked up false readings of torpedoes that had never been fired. Finally, the Maddox and a sister vessel, the Turner Joy, were operating in an area long claimed by North Vietnam. The ships were on a secret mission, code named DeSoto, designed to elicit intelligence about the North's activities.

    Unlike Johnson, the Republican candidate Barry Goldwater publicly argued in favor of intervention. He was deemed by many -- including many Republicans -- an extremist. Goldwater believed that whatever force was needed to defeat the communists in Vietnam should be used, including nuclear bombs. In response to this the Johnson campaign released a controversial television ad which portrayed a little girl picking and counting petals from a daisy in a field, which then dissolves into a picture of a nuclear mushroom cloud. This ad, referred to as the "Daisy Girl," was intended to highlight Goldwater's alleged recklessness. In the end voters chose to elect President Johnson in a landslide victory. The following year LBJ began a massive build-up in Vietnam.

    "Some are eager to enlarge the conflict. They call upon us to supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do. They ask us to take reckless action [such as bombing North Vietnam]….Such action would offer no solution at all to the real problems of Viet Nam."
    Lyndon Johnson, October 1964


    Mr. Roosevelt said at Boston on October 30: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

    The same thought was expressed in a speech at Brooklyn on November 1: "I am fighting to keep our people out of foreign wars. And I will keep on fighting."

    The President told his audience at Rochester, New York, on November 2: "Your national government ... is equally a government of peace -- a government that intends to retain peace for the American people."

    On the same day the voters of Buffalo were assured: "Your President says this country is not going to war."

    And he declared at Cleveland on November 3: "The first purpose of our foreign policy is to keep our country out of war."

  2. This thread recognizes that Obama is exceedingly charismatic, articulate, bright and has a 'cult of personality.'

    At times of economic and geopolitical peril, such political figures accumulate power at a rapid and unstoppable pace.

    You will all be assimilated.

    Resistance is futile.
  3. I was wondering why you did not mention Woodrow Wilson (he was a college professor btw...)

    You really need a lobotomy. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam were legitimate wars against legitimate enemies for legitimate reasons. Iraq war is an artificial war against phony enemies.

    WWII was the best thing that happened to US. In many ways US owes its current standard of living to the simple fact that all major powers other than US bled each other dry during WWII.

    Both Korea and Vietnam were wars to counter spread of Communism. If there was a perception that communism is on the march unchallenged it would have made it more likely that pro communistic movements EVERYWHERE would be emboldened.

    Goldwater was a nutcase.
  4. For a second I thought you were serious. You had me until "In many ways US owes its current standard of living to the simple fact that all major powers other than US bled each other dry during WWII.." Yea the way F and GM are dominating BMW, Daimler Benz and Toyota is a real coup for the American war machine. And of course EVERYONE knows how important Nam was. Domino's could've fallen.

  5. Are you capable of thinking 1 step ahead? Yes WWII propelled US to unprecedented levels but the cold war proceeded to take out a considerable portion of that advantage. Up to the point that Nixon took US from the gold standard currencies of civilized world were pegged to the US dollar by TREATY (bretton woods) and US dollar was pegged to gold.

    The rise of japan and south korea could be attributed to US and USSR duking it out for numero uno and low currency rates giving them a foothold in the market which they exploited to maximum effect.

    Whose fault is it that GM Ford and Chrysler were too busy simply making as many cars as possible with concepts such as "planned obsolescence" instead of trying to continuously improve their products. Classical case of a business failure.
  6. The smart people on ET recognize that you and your ilk are exceedingly boorish, hypocritical, weak-minded, and in need of a pied piper such as Obama.

    In times such as these, slick-tongued salesmen prosper more than usual, selling the dream of "change" to the likes of you and other liberals denied the promise of luminaries like Kerry and Gore.

    You will all be disappointed (again).

    To think otherwise is futile.

    Have a nice evening. :)
  7. How ironic that you'd ask if I'm capable of thinking 1 step ahead. Who did we "fight" the Cold war against? The same country we allied with in Eastern Europe. The same country FDR sucked off at Yalta. So what was the result of almost a half million dead Americans? A Germany and Japan who're industrial super powers, an elevated USSR that enslaved Eastern Europe for a half century and a MODERN Russia who we're STILL worried about. Not to mention a bunch of emigrating Euro-Jews to Palestine where we ALSO have our tit in a ringer. Yea, great war, you fucking partisan putz.

    Now please tell us how important Vietnam was.........Oh that's right it was waged by a Democrat so we know it was righteous and good.....

  8. Globalist sect "middle manager" zbigniew brzezinski likes his puppet obama's NON peaceful tactics while at ACORN! :eek:

    BTW, anyone seen obama's birth certificate yet???? OOOooooppppsss! :eek:

    ...and I just LOVE obama's economic advisors....stand up ethical guys......LOL!!!!!!!

    franklin raines

    tim howard

    jim johnson

    Do a little research on these three winners.........

    Yeap, the left/right two party paradigm has CONNED the american public again!
  9. Not half a million americans, roughly 300K. WWII was not optional. It was either Nazi Germany takes over the whole European continent or Soviet Union takes over Eastern Europe. US would be isolated and eventually crushed. Bear in mind, Nazis were working on the NUKE too.

    What US "got" from the war was the whole civilized world dependent on its goodwill, proud european nations reduced to nothing and US getting a good headstart in terms of technology and business.

    It should be a no brainer, without WWII US position in the world would be a whole lot different than it is now. I think at one point during the Cold War US GDP was like half of world GDP. This obviously would never happen had Europe not being bled dry.
  10. Everyone know how and why WWI and WWII happened, right? Germany was growing fast and infringing on other colonial powers dominating trade - "the Great Powers", "place in the sun" and all that. If you don't know - please read up on history. After having been beaten in WWI, Germany was open to radicalization - just like the US after 2001-09-11 - and they went for a crazy nationalistic ideology of mass suggestion about getting back at their enemies.

    Now, there is something very important to understand about global wars and great wars in general. Just like some British "entrepreneurs" were greedy about the cotton industry of India, just like some energy cartels were greedy about Iraq ... and just about any longer term geopolitical active intervention, it is about world resources - natural, labour, cultural, human etc.

    Halford Mackinder was a geographer who pointed out the importance of natural resource domination of the world. He did this in the 1904 paper "The Geographical Pivot of History" - where he came to the conclusion that whoever dominate the "Heartland", dominates the world. Now, this is of course in the setting of a very Darwinian time, where domination and exploitation was rampant. Still, it resonates today - especially with the Neo-conservatives.

    After WWII, there came the Marshall Plan, that basically sucked nations for resources and aligned trade with the US for many decades. The UK finished paying their war debts back to the US in December 2006...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_II (Europe in ruins)

    Now, this is to understand how the US became the largest and most dominating economy of the world. Of course, with great riches and boom comes also great progress in technology, research and business - it all flourishes, as long as trade and commerce is encouraged - like it was in the US. Thereby, "everyone" in the US were able to spin something off of this funnelling of world resources through the US, and the US became the largest consumer market in the world. That is just the most simple look at it - but it IS at the essence of what happened.

    Now the Cold War is over for some time, and we have the Internet spread throughout society - not restricted to military and academics like before. This means that the flow of resources is being changed and nations are doing more trade amongst themselves - not letting every piece of business run through US controlled interests. This encourages growth elsewhere - and with the rapid advances in technology - even poor countries get a flying start in this race of growth and prosperity. Everyone have access to very advanced tools, and can quickly develop new ones as well as adapt to changing conditions with new computer supported tools.

    Another effect of the advancing technology is the freedom of information, and thereby freedom of thought... The media is no longer what it used to be, and there is little to control the flow of information - as under the traditional mass media. This means that democratic processes are bolstered and not so easily diverted or controlled by propaganda, disinformation and censorship/marginalization like before.

    All of this has a profound effect on the "old-money" control and domination of the flow of "world resources". It means that direct wars are not so easily supported by the populations like before, and the ways to attain social control must be changed... Since there is now a stronger democratic movement world wide, new methods need to be developed to effectively keep the same goals and benefits in the sights of the "old-money" elites.

    We are seeing the development of the US military - where now Effects-Based Operations is becoming the new military doctrine to "protect US interests" and "the American way of life." We have seen a strong rise in terrorism and the use of car-bombing which has been touted by the CIA as the most cost-effective and psychologically impacting to urban warfare since carpet bombing cities Dresden style. The US has instructed operatives abroad in car-bombing techniques, just like they instructed South American leaders in "social control", torture and keeping dictatorships - at the "School of the Americas" as it has famously been known. Just before a coup attempt at Hugo Chavez, former US president George Herbert Walker Bush (the incumbent idiot's father), had a meeting at an island resort with the former military leader of Venezuela (educated at said school) - and shortly thereafter there was a coup attempt in Venezuela trying to overthrow Hugo Chavez. The CIA had to admit they knew about it, but denied involvement.


    Now, anyone thinking that the US is a squeak-clean saint in geopolitical practical policies and operations - really have to start educating themselves. History is being written every day, and more importantly the denialism and negationism of before is no longer effective - because ... there is freedom of information with debates and history analysis being performed at an increasingly rapid pace. There are a lot of critics of US policies - even within the US and from academia, which is unstoppable - it is simply evolution and bolstered by technology and newfound freedom of information and thought. That means that the kids that are growing up today, are learning about the "real US", and not the propaganda that we were all spoon fed with during our basic education. It also tells the history of many of the little dirty secrets, like the PLO and CIA co-operations with an understanding from Yasser Arafat - the now dead terrorist/freedom fighter/Palestinian leader/whatever.

    #10     Oct 5, 2008