Kennedy's speech at a graduation for American University has been referenced a few times recently, most likely because of the second and last paragraphs provided here. The specifics of the speech do not necessarily apply to our current situation (he talks about a direct line to Moscow and a cessation of above-ground tests), but the notion that a President could offer some of the expansive ideas put forth in this speech, especially compared to the bunker mentality being offered these days, is greatly appealing to some. Here are some excerpts: I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children-not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the glove and to generations yet unborn. Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year of weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles - which can only destroy and never create - is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace. I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war - and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task. Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward - by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home. First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable - that mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal. Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace - based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions-on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace - no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process-a way of solving problems. With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor - it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it. Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims - such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars ... that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union ... [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries ... [and] to achieve world domination ... by means of aggressive wars." Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements - to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning - a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats. No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. ... Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different. We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communist's interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy - or of a collective death - wish for the world. To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility. For we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people - but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth. Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system - a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished. At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian sub continent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others - by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada. ... The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough - more than enough - of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on - not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.
Oh please, it's all about the sand. Sand contains silicone dioxide. Sand is necessary for glass and silicone chips - two primary components in various solar collector systems (photo voltaic and photo thermal). Bush is leading us into an environmentally friendly era. Can't you people see that the man is a visionary? Anyways, you lack anything to prove your statements and cynicism reasonable. Iraq sits atop oil. But its productive oil wells supply only, hang on to your underwear Tex', 3 percent of the world's market. Overthrowing Saddam would not immediately increase the amount of oil Iraq provides. If everything went as well as first thought, the volume of oil coming out of Iraq would perhaps be about 3.5 percent of the world's oil supply at decade's end. If Bush wanted to take the quickest and cheapest route to getting hold of the oil he could just lift the sanctions and do business directly with the country, not to create war. Anyhow the country's sources of imported oil are primarily outside the middle east to begin with. US consumes about 45% of oil from its allies to 13% from persian gulf countries. Other References: http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories/specialreports/1033955095.shtml http://www.washtimes.com/business/20030113-368760.htm http://www.wilderness.org/newsroom/pdf/nationalsecurity.pdf
Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 90% of it is untapped. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html Occupying Iraq and bringing in American and international oil corporations to do the drilling would probably increase Iraq's output, dontcha think? Do your homework, schoolboy! And hang onto your own underwear!
Speaking of Kennedy, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world, where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril." - President John F. Kennedy on the Cuban Missle Crises - October of 1962. Yes, a different conflict but the parallels between this and the current conflict are amazing.
I swear you do this on purpose...yes, context, or the context in which Bush is saying UN mandates are worthy of war to support, were my point to begin with.
I particularly like this part...thanks, JFK!!!: But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. how does one build a world of peace by not disarming tyrants who have a history of conquest for other nations and turning chemical weapons on his own people? how is that peace?
From you... Before I answer another of your BS posts, show me who I called protesting "unamerican" or show me where I said those protesting action are un-American. I am not talking about her anti-war, anti-Bush protest an un-American act, I do see turning on your Flag as un-American. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51931&perpage=30&pagenumber=3 Stop wasting my time Barney Fife.
I'm starting to doubt my sanity...isn't it a case-book sign of insanity when you repeatedy do something which you already know has no point.. Anyway...What I am saying is that the fact that you base your arguments on what you term to be 'facts', react to anyone who refutes them as just not acknowledging them as factual is the reason why there is little point in trying to discuss something with you. Case in point: I told you that we fought WWII in Europe NOT because we Americans were outraged about what Hitler was doing, and wanted to save Europe and the Jews, but because he declared war against us following Pearl Harbour as he was allied with the Japanese...You said I was wrong, that Americans entered the war to stop Hitler, and that that was a 'fact'. I pointed out that before Dec. 7th, the war had been going on for 2 years, and every poll showed Americans were far and away against getting involved militarily, every effort of FDR's to do so was overturned by Congress in response to the will of the people, and that even Lend Lease, which only was enacted months before Pearl Harbour, had to be sugar coated for the US public by getting the return of being given British naval bases throughout the world...and you told me again that I was wrong, and that your Granny said so too...furthermore you said I was unpatriotic, a supporter of Iraq, and full of poop..and decried my treasonous insult of all the brave Americans who fought in the war...all because I had merely repeated factual history. This is the kind of thing I am talking about...Your opinions are 'facts' and when they run contrary to actual 'facts' you just say they're wrong, insult the person citing them, and proceed as if you have won the argument. It's fairly pointless..and then, when I point out that you do this over and over, you...who called me a traitor, full of poop, and other pleasantries, you say that I get personal. Imagine if I stated...oh, I don't know...that Bush only wants to take over Iraq because of the oil..A defensible position, but far from a proven 'fact', would you not agree? Suppose I stated that it was a fact, end of discussion, and stated that any sane, honest, informed person knows as much...and then anytime anyone disagreed I showed their disagreement as evidence that they weren't sane, honest, or informed. That's what you do all the time...and the oil thing has a hell of a lot more to back it up than some of your claims...
We should go with the British and allow some imposed deadline in the second resolution-if the resolution ever gets out. Tony Blair is getting pounded there...
I was curious about this... did you ever own up, johnheath, that MacBeth was correct about how we got into WW-2? The circumstances he just outlined? Because they are correct. I don't agree with MacBeth about everything. We may not agree about Napoleon's reasons for war, for example, but he's dead-on about this one. Why don't you read up on it a little. It's all there in the historical record.
Ouch, that hurt. Anyways, the info you provided is no different. At the moment 3% of the worlds oil market comes from Iraq. The link you provided does little to back your bias. It explains oil potential in Iraq which everyone knows is there. But its not like following an invasion this is going to immediately pay off as you would like to mislead. To begin with, doubling the production of Iraq's oil would take many years due to poor maintenance of the country's oil production facilities. Anyhow, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's contribution to the world market. Fixing the immediate problems would take time and money. And again your information didn't contradict mine at all. Oil output will increase but the question is when it will pay off. Not anytime soon. As I stated before; at decade's end output would probably go from 3% to 3.5% of the oil market. Also your link backs up what I said earlier. If Bush were so adamant about getting Iraqi oil the sanctions would had been dropped yesterday. It would not only be the cheaper alternative but the quickest course of action. Iraqi oil I'm sure is an issue but the time it will take before it actually pays off will be a while. Don't hold your breath Tex'.
You are great entertainment! You are corroborating the wife analogy, and being just like a woman; you know have been proven wrong yet you continue to try to make a point using the very thing that was proved wrong. I am trying to get this across, but you either have a comprehension disability, or you just are not reading. So, genius, let me put this in plain, basic, elementary terms so you may be able to keep up. 1) I felt Francis & Mobley not showing respect during the National Anthem was out of line. 2)This was an act that had absolutely nothing to do with their view on war, or anything else. 3) It was simply the fact they were doing what they were doing. Now, insert that girl into the equation in place of "Francis & Mobley" and you will see where you are wrong. If you find something just let me know. Keep in touch, I am a sucker for a good laugh!
oh, Deck...I meant to respond to your Aubrey/Maturin based defense of Hayes' depiction of Napoleon... THe portrayals are accurate in terms of how Napoleon was depicted outside France at the time, and he later conceded some of his political ideals for the sake of pragmatism, but he was never the aggressive war monger portrayed...Have you ever noticed how O'Brien skirts the issue that it was the British who broke the treaty of Amiens, or the Brits/Prussians/Russians etc. who broke the Peace of Tilsit? The way he gets around those facts is an interesting excercise in evasive historical recollection...lol But, seriously, if you like O'Brien, have you tried either C. S. Forester's Hornblower novels, or Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series? Good reads, both, although both have the same..er..slant.
i thought about this long before when bush said he would attack iraq even without the un approval, i mean not just china , every other country will follow the world police's example. why can the big boss can do it without un approval , we cant?
Ironically it was just this very same kind of snowball effect threatening world stability which the U.S. used to trumpet when the Soviet Union acted 'pre-emptively' contrary to UN support, and called the UN 'irrelevant'.
I don't know what the launch date is (I'm sure there is one by now), and I wouldn't tell any of you if I did, but... The number of sorties in the no-fly zones has drastically increased in the past 72 hours. Most of these sorties are not "real" sorties, they are simply done to increase the traffic to Iraqi radars and make it impossible to tell from where or when an attack might arise. The preparation of the battlefield has begun. (actually, it began long ago) Soon...
It also could be that the UN's influence has no where to go but down. There's a growing resentment of other nations when it comes to the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. I wonder about the day India's economy and millitary grows as fast as China. Over the past 50 years, the UN has been led by the US. You have the occasional French thorn, but the US has gotten things done. As our influence wanes or plateaus while others are still growing, our rooted ideology inside the UN might not be as prevalent. There was a BBS topic about the impending "clash of civilizations" by Samuel Huntington that was focused on Islam, but applies for other areas of the world. Since the search is down, is there anyone that can retrieve it? I wonder about that too. It could be that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Credibility of the information, how it was attained, from who it was it attained, whether it could be accounted for are factors. Also, we could put all the chemical and biological information on the table and the Germans and French would say, "Well then, let's just destroy it and continue inspections!" I believe that the hawks in the Cabinet want war, but if they hand over the absolute evidence to justify it, there won't be any war as a result. It sounds circular, but if you take into account that Russia, Germany and maybe even France won't mind that Saddam stays in power if he isn't being aggresive, then it makes sense.
I've read them all. I love novels about the era... especially naval fiction, at least that's been the case the last few years. I've even read all the "Richard Bolitho" series by Alexander Kent, which is the pseudonym of Douglas Reeman. Reeman's not in the same league as Forester or Cornwell. O'Brian I consider to be in a league of his own! As far as Bush's press conference goes, he seemed to answer any difficult question with (paraphrasing here) "When I was elected President I put my hand on the Bible and swore to defend the Constitution and the United States of America... so help me God... and that's what I'm going to do." There is nothing wrong with that statement, of course, far from it... but as an answer to a complicated question(s), it brings to mind another. - Is this why, including this one, he's only had eight (8!!) press conferences since being elected? That he doesn't know the answers unless they are on a teleprompter? And, if they aren't, that he can only give simplistic, emotional responses? Or no real response at all? I'm sorry, but I think he is way over his head. I have a very deep desire for Bush to get better advice. I don't think he is getting good advice from his civilian staff at all. Or if he is, he is not listening.
Before I answer another of your BS posts, show me who I called protesting "unamerican" or show me where I said those protesting action are un-American. I am not talking about her anti-war, anti-Bush protest an un-American act, I do see turning on your Flag as un-American.
