You might want to read on down, with regard to what Truman had to say:
The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by Communists, who defy the government's authority at a number of points, particularly along the northern boundaries. A Commission appointed by the United Nations security Council is at present investigating disturbed conditions in northern Greece and alleged border violations along the frontier between Greece on the one hand and Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia on the other.
Meanwhile, the Greek Government is unable to cope with the situation. The Greek army is small and poorly equipped. It needs supplies and equipment if it is to restore the authority of the government throughout Greek territory. Greece must have assistance if it is to become a self-supporting and self-respecting democracy.
The United States must supply that assistance. We have already extended to Greece certain types of relief and economic aid but these are inadequate.
President Truman, March 12, 1947
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/trudoc.asp
What Truman did, and what became known as the Truman doctrine, was a "tit for tat" scenario with the Soviets. We were not going to allow Soviet expansionism throughout the world, and we nipped it in the bud in South Korea, as well as Viet Nam for over a decade. I think it important to note that we never lost a battle in Viet Nam, and I reject the notion that we lost a war in Viet Nam. We allowed for a liberal media to influence the political machinations of the era, and it was in fact a mistake for President Ford not to have gone back in and wiped Hanoi off of the map in 1975, but I digress. I could end up writing an epistle on this topic, but I do opine that this was a defining moment in our Nation, and what was the initial split between conservative politics and the socialist/communist movement in this Nation.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:57 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and---
there
wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including
Viet
Nam
are you implying that communism was a direct threat to our
sovereignty?
if so, then wouldn't you say that socialism is a direct threat?
----
You may in fact disagree with the logic, (and like most
Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine
Truman:
I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own
destinies in their own way.
Speech to a joint session of the US Congress (12 March 1947),
outlining what became known as The Truman Doctrine.
All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends
his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do
what they are supposed to do anyway.
Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish
ship in Palistine. Told him I would talk to Gen[eral] Marshall about
it. He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of
proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs. Henry
brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis
and they stayed. When the country went backward — and Republican in
the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the DP [Displaced
Person] program. The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care
not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks
get murdered or mistreated as DP as long as the Jews get special
treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political
neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or
mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no
difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management,
Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who
remember their past condition when prosperity comes.
> Israel is a conundrum, and not a good example of other hot spots in the> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
> world, albeit they are right in the middle of several issues.
>
> To the point, if any Nation does any act that would threaten the sovereignty
> of the United States, then I think we have the right to intervene. Thus,
> when there are those who are not identified with a Nation-State, but are
> devout on seeing Islam return to its glory of the 11th and 12th centuries,
> then yes, I think we have every right to intervene. So was the case with
> Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq (which we believed was a potential threat in
> 2003) and Pakistan just last year, when we violated Pakistan's soveriegnty
> to go in and emasculate Osama bin Laden.
>
> I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and there
> wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including Viet
> Nam, and Iraq. You may in fact disagree with the logic, (and like most
> Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine with the case of Viet Nam)
> and/or be intent on revising contemporary history, but again, I can think of
> no incidents. (Maybe the Spanish American War....)
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, plainolamerican
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8&feature=player_embeddedIfi...be it. There is no wiggle room left for Lord after that.>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > would we as a Nation have a right to interfere
> > ---
> > yes ... even to the extent of dismantling their government, if
> > necessary
> > but, remember, this is not about controlling resources or protecting
> > one foreign government from another
>
> > backatcha:
> > If the US stops providing military support to israel and their enemies
> > attack them should we interfere?
> > remember, israel has spied on us, killed our soldiers, corrupted our
> > politicians and promotes socialism in our nation
>
> > On Oct 3, 9:50 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey PlainOl', (And Michael, Bruce, and all other Ron Paul Supporters
> > here
> > > in PF!)
>
> > > I have a question, I think it's rather simple. I am going to give a
> > > hypothetical:
>
> > > "If Mexico decides to revert back to 19th or early 20th century
> > technology,
> > > and the Nation chooses to dump all of its sewers, waste streams both
> > > residential and commercial, (which would potentially include chemical
> > waste
> > > and toxins, leachates, etc.) into a system that is untreated, and the
> > > stream of waste is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where the Nation of
> > > Mexico builds a pipe in international waters to divert this stream away
> > from
> > > its coast, where eventually, it is going to end up on American beaches
> > and
> > > shorelines, would we as a Nation have a right to interfere, or to stop
> > such
> > > a waste stream?"
>
> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > Beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, people like
> > > > Woodrow Wilson began supposing that we had the right and duty to be
> > > > the world's keepers, and they have proceeded to mess things up around
> > > > the world ever since.
> > > > ----
> > > > spot on!
>
> > > > those who think the US should interfere in the internal affairs of
> > > > other nations and fund their militaries should fight and fund their
> > > > own charities without US tax dollars and soldiers
>
> > > > you're either an American or something else
>
> > > > On Oct 1, 10:05 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Folliesby Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
> > > > > Some time agoThe American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord claimed Ron Paul's
> > > > foreign policy of nonintervention was "liberal," and that conservatives
> > are
> > > > supposed to be hawkish on foreign policy. Now to some extent, no one
> > really
> > > > cares about these labels, and who qualifies as what. But it is
> > obviously
> > > > false to say that supporters of nonintervention must be left-liberals.
> > I
> > > > showed this in my YouTube response, which dismantled Lord's entire
> > position:
>
> > > > As Gary North put it, "The lesson here is simple: don't get Woods on
> > your
> > > > case if you are saying really stupid things about American history."
> > > > > Yet hecame back for more. With a busy schedule both personally and
> > > > professionally, I have only now had the time to respond, which I'm
> > doing in
> > > > a series of bullet points.
> > > > > 1) I pointed out in the video that the anti-imperialist movement in
> > the
> > > > late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by the
> > > > conservatives, as historian William Leuchtenberg has noted. I likewise
> > > > pointed out that we may count on one hand the number of Progressives
> > who
> > > > opposed U.S. entry into World War I. I further noted that the recent
> > > > interventions Lord supports were likewise supported by Hillary Clinton,
> > > > Howard Stern, theNew York Times, and theWashington Post(among others I
> > > > mentioned). Before Lord goes attacking other people for their tactical
> > > > alliances, he might make note of the beam in his own eye.
> > > > > Lord does not acknowledge any of this. I wouldn't, either, were I in
> > his
> > > > shoes.
> > > > > 2) Lord is obsessed with Ronald Reagan, and again condemns Ron Paul
> > for
> > > > opposing Reagan's expansion of government power. The weird cult of
> > > > personality around the deceased former president reveals that Reagan
> > has
> > > > become the Right's Obama: a man whose every action is to be treated as
> > ipso
> > > > facto brilliant, perhaps even divinely inspired. Critics are mere
> > heretics
> > > > whose arguments need not actually be refuted; the mere fact that they
> > have
> > > > disagreed with the Great Leader is enough to condemn them forever.
> > > > > How dare you say Ronald Reagan wasn't free-market enough! He
> > supported
> > > > the free market to the precisely correct extent, says the Supreme
> > Neocon
> > > > Council.
> > > > > That Lord is more interested in someone's loyalty toa manthan he is
> > in
> > > > loyalty to the principles that the man was supposed to represent, is
> > the
> > > > classic expression of a cult of personality.
> > > > > 3) In pointing out that Felix Morley, one of the founding editors of
> > the
> > > > weekly conservative newspaperHuman Events, was himself a
> > noninterventionist,
> > > > it was obviously not my intention to argue thatHuman Eventsfavors
> > > > nonintervention abroad as an editorial position. I myself have been
> > > > published and interviewed numerous times inHuman Events, so I'm quite
> > > > familiar with its editorial line. The point is that Lord describes
> > > > nonintervention as a "liberal" (as in left-liberal, not classical
> > liberal)
> > > > position. As long as I can find some indisputably non-liberal
> > supporters of
> > > > nonintervention, I win. No one in his right mind would consider Morley
> > a
> > > > left-liberal. But Morley is simply Exhibit A.
> > > > > 4) Here's Exhibit B: Lord's own superior atThe American Spectator,
> > senior
> > > > editor Angelo Codevilla. Speaking on the Mike Church Show about the
> > > > bipartisan foreign-policy consensus to which Lord and Levin subscribe,
> > > > Codevilla said:This is a radical departure from the way that America's
> > > > status in the world was built in the first place. It was built by a
> > founding
> > > > generation and the statesmen of the nineteenth century who adhered to
> > the
> > > > traditional view that the governors of any country are the stewards of
> > the
> > > > interests of that country only, and they are not entitled in any way to
> > > > interfere in the affairs of other countries….Beginning in the early
> > part of
> > > > the twentieth century, people like Woodrow Wilson began supposing that
> > we
> > > > had the right and duty to be the world's keepers, and they have
> > proceeded to
> > > > mess things up around the world ever since.What I try to do in this
> > book [A
> > > > Student's Guide to International Relations] is to explain…that the
> > world
> > > > really is filled with people who are really different, who really do
> > think
> > > > differently, and that they work in an international system which gives
> > them
> > > > full rein, full capacity to be what it is they want, and that makes it
> > > > impossible for foreigners to conduct their affairs.In other words,
> > > > imperialism has always been something of a losing proposition,
> > especially in
> > > > the modern international system, and our ruling class's attempt to
> > > > nation-build the world in their own image is doomed to failure and to
> > > > creating one disaster after another….[Other countries] have, according
> > to
> > > > our Founding Fathers, every right to be as benighted, backward, and
> > nasty to
> > > > one another as they want. The Declaration of Independence says all men
> > are
> > > > created equal, all nations have the right to be who they are…. The
> > > > Declaration of Independence claimed no special rights for the American
> > > > people. It claimed for the American people the rights that the American
> > > > people recognized in the rest of mankind….Americans, like the rest of
> > > > mankind, have an inalienable right to self-determination. Now that's
> > not
> > > > simply a theoretical statement. It's also a practical one. Because it
> > is
> > > > utterly impossible for one people to transfer its own ethos, its own
> > notion
> > > > of good and evil, its own way of doing things, to another. The Afghans,
> > the
> > > > Arabs, are who they are; they have grown up in a particular culture. It
> > is
> > > > what they know, what they love. As John Quincy Adams would have put it,
> > who
> > > > has appointed us as judges over them?Codevilla also shot off a
> > one-liner
> > > > against the chickenhawk phenomenon; when Church asked him about neocon
> > Bill
> > > > Kristol, Codevilla replied: "And by the way, I served in the armed
> > forces….
> > > > Billy didn't at all."
> > > > > 5) For Exhibits C, D, E, and on through the alphabet, see Bill
> > Kauffman's
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment