Revisionist history PlainOl', the Soviets were clearly a threat. I was living here in Germany in 1976 through 1979 as a young soldier when they were a threat. I am too young to remember, (although I was alive) but the Soviets propping missiles up in Cuba ninety miles from my home in Tampa was clearly a threat. There are hundreds if not thousands of other examples, but to suggest anything else is either Moonbattery and/or RonPaulCrackpottery.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:41 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
We were not going to allow Soviet---
expansionism throughout the world
the birth of a term called culture of fear
the soviets were not a threat to the USA and everyone knew they were
headed for collapse .... yet, through exaggerated fear they were
demonized
every attempt by the US to intervene has been a disaster and seldom
has it ever led to a democracy
not that the US has an obligation to promote democracy
> *The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist
On Oct 3, 12:19 pm, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You might want to read on down, with regard to what Truman had to say:
>
> activities of several thousand armed men, led by Communists, who defy the> hand and Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia on the other. *
> 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
> * *
>
> *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> self-respecting democracy. *
> 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
> * *
>
> *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> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> 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
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8&feature=player_embeddedIfi.... There is no wiggle room left for Lord after that.>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> > On Oct 3, 11:08 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey PlainOl',
>
> > > Israel is a conundrum, and not a good example of other hot spots in the
> > > 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
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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