Your Challenge
Your challenge, should you decide to accept it is to debunk this piece of drivel I found on a right web site in an intelligent and understandable way.
All war is bad...ummm, war is always what defeats evil....show me a time where peace talks have worked.
The Left has no ideas about anything except to blame Bush and Republicans for everything...that is why they will continue to lose.
posted by Ron at 7:21 PM
51 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Good one, Jim!! And we recently found out that was due more to the Russians than to us.
Now I need to find the story on that so I get my facts straight, but it was something about one of the Russian generals refused to go along with the launch missiles order or whatever. If you could point me to the story, I would appreciate it. ALSO there was some non-violent resistance in WWII that worked very well. But, because it did not involve battles, it is not talked about. And then, of course there was Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
Lonna
I meant October 1962.
This was what is commonly know as "the Cuban Missile Crisis."
War was averted because Kennedy had the strength to stand up to the Soviet Union as well has his own military leaders who insisted on using force. Under the threat of "mutually assured destruction", Kennedy and Kruschev brokered a deal which was a win-win for both sides.
There was no launch order given by either side that I've ever heard of. If you've read something different, I'd be interested in hearing.
Okay, now that YOU, Jim, don't know what I am talking about, I WILL have to search!!
I have so much info in my head, but I don't retain the details well -- concentrate on the "big picture."
The first thing to go is the mind.
Lonna
Jim, this is ONE excerpt, but I know I have read things more specific than this. Still searching. Lonna
In the middle of the escalating tensions, the destroyer USS Beale, whose Second Captain John Peterson spoke at Friday's sessions, was dropping depth charges on Soviet submarine B-59, one of four at the quarantine line, each carrying nuclear-tipped torpedoes.
The U.S. Navy (news - web sites) "did not have a clue that the submarine had a nuclear weapon on board," National Security Archives director Thomas Blanton said at a news conference.
"They exploded right next to the hull. It felt like you were sitting in a metal barrel, which somebody is constantly blasting with a sledgehammer," the sub's signals intelligence officer Vadim Orlov said in an account issued by Blanton.
The Soviet submarine's crew thought the war may have started and considered using their nuclear weapon, but decide instead to surface, Orlov said.
Here it is, Jim:
Well, this is similar to what I read. We owe a lot to Russian Vasily Arkhipov. To read more go to the site below. Lonna
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/02/sp_world_blanton101602.htm
washingtonpost.com:
Good morning, Tom, and thanks for joining us. You just recently wrapped up a conference in Havana with some of the key players of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even with all you know about those 13 days, what surprised you to uncover?
Thomas S. Blanton: The most surprising new evidence revealed that we were even closer to nuclear war than the policymakers knew at the time, and that's saying something, because on Saturday, October 27, Robert McNamara thought he might not live to see the sunrise. At the time, there was a crescendo of bad news: a U-2 shot down over Cuba, another U-2 straying over Siberia with US Air Force jets (also armed with nuclear air-to-air missiles) scrambling to head off possible MIG interception. The Joint Chiefs had recommended air strike and invasion of Cuba, as of 4 p.m. The Cubans were firing on all the low-level US recon flights. At the conference, we found out that exactly at that moment, US destroyers were dropping signaling depth charges on a Soviet submarine near the quarantine line that was carrying a nuclear-tipped torpedo -- totally unbeknownst to the US Navy. The Soviet captain lost his temper, there could be a world war up there, let's take some of them down with us, etc. Cooler heads prevailed, specifically the sub brigade deputy commander named Vasily Arkhipov, who was onboard and calmed the captain down. The sub came to the surface about 15 minutes after Soviet ambassador Dobrynin left Bobby Kennedy's office carrying RFK's urgent message to Khrushchev, time is running out, invasion in 48 hours, if you take the missiles out, we will pledge not to invade Cuba, plus we'll take our missiles out of Turkey as long as you don't mention that part of it publicly. Early the next morning, Khrushchev announced the Soviet missiles would be coming out.
Excellent Lonna! I had never heard about this before. Never to old to learn something new. Thanks for the link.
My pleasure, Jim. This link is to the most research I have ever done, probably. You might find some helpful and surprising information in it. Lonna http://oldamericancentury.org/submit_0061.htm
What peace talks happened in the Cuban Missle crisis, really...I'd like to know...I don't know too much about it....remember the bay of pigs and what a great job that was...
When did Kennedy have peace talks to stop the bay of pigs? From what I remember both sides where simply to scared to do anything because both nations had such large nuclear...and if that is true the treat of war caused peace
seems like war stoped evil in WWI and WWII...
peace talks worked in the cold war...wait, that was military build up..
peace worked in Israel....no, that still hasn't worked...
still looking for something here...
the last comment...dems will continue to lose...
been true for almost 12 years now...most of you don't even have cars that old.
here is what: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/C/Cubanmis.asp
says about the cuban missle crisis...no mention of any peace talks...
Cuban missile crisis
Related: United States History
1962, major cold war confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. After the Bay of Pigs Invasion , the USSR increased its support of Fidel Castro's Cuban regime, and in the summer of 1962, Nikita Khrushchev secretly decided to install ballistic missiles in Cuba. When U.S. reconnaissance flights revealed the clandestine construction of missile launching sites, President Kennedy publicly denounced (Oct. 22, 1962) the Soviet actions. He imposed a naval blockade on Cuba and declared that any missile launched from Cuba would warrant a full-scale retaliatory attack by the United States against the Soviet Union. On Oct. 24, Russian ships carrying missiles to Cuba turned back, and when Khrushchev agreed (Oct. 28) to withdraw the missiles and dismantle the missile sites, the crisis ended as suddenly as it had begun. The United States ended its blockade on Nov. 20, and by the end of the year the missiles and bombers were removed from Cuba. The United States, in return, pledged not to invade Cuba, and subsequently secretly removed ballistic missiles it had placed in Turkey.
so I guess no one has shown one major event solved from peace talks...this one solved by military might....again...good try though
this account suggests that Kennedy's "talks" caused the cuban missle crisis...
In June of 1961, while still in the early months of his presidency, Kennedy attended a summit with Premier Khrushchev in Vienna to discuss cold war confrontations between the east and west, in particular the situation in Berlin. The failure of the two leaders to resolve any of their differences during the summit led Khrushchev to view Kennedy as a weak president who lacked the power or support to negotiate any meaningful concessions in the arms race. Fueled by concerns that the U.S. had more nuclear missiles than the Soviet arsenal, and, more importantly, that some of the American missiles were based a mere 150 miles from its boarders, in Turkey, the Soviet leadership grew increasingly desperate to somehow tip the balance of power in its favor. The showdown in Cuba may indeed have been the result of such accumulating anxiety among the Soviet political elite.
http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/
Hey Lame game;
Why is it that the people with the smallest minds always have the biggest mouths? As Ellen Glasgow once remarked: "He knows so little and knows it so fluently." The Donkey does think you are a fool but what's my opinion compared to that of thousands of others?
The Donkey refers to your latest discharge of plebeian verbiage; in which, you have proven, once again, that there is no such thing as unutterable nonsense. Your post is an orgy of stultifying cacophonous depravity; an exercise in literary impotence, and an offense to all of good taste and decency.
The subject of war is huge. Why does the lame game love war so much? The donkey has never seen such a cheerleader of this orgy of blood and gore. One would wonder why the lame game does not go over and get a closer veiw. Have some courage, lame game, Uncle Sam wants you.
Donkey. Your subject of war is huge post is spot on. I have never been to war but am capable of assimilating the concept well enough to know that it is the most serious of all matters.Why would someone adore this concept?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It feels so good to be right...
the donkey can't say anything intelligent, Ron thinks the crap the donkey says is great...even though he can not argue anything at all...
never said war was great...just proving that our military and the threat of force (or force) is the ONLY was to defeat evil...
your side thinks talking and hugging work....still waiting for ONE example of that working....you have to hate and insult because you don't have an example...you only have theories that have been developed by professors who sit at Harvard and Berkley....
I'm glad I come here...anytime I get down I can come here and read what people put and feel so good about myself....thanks!!!
The military and the threat of force is the only way to defeat evil...hmm
Our military has certainly defeated a lot of evil in Iraq. Certainly calmed things down in the Middle East.
What it has done is escalate the violence there and guarantee billions more people world-wide hate us, and more of those people will be willing to kill themselves taking our soldiers out. BUT we had not only the threat of force, but the force itself. So we attacked a nation that had never done anything to us. Certainly nothing like we had done to them, anyway.
That is why we only fight wars against nations who are engaged in wars of aggression. So why didn't we get involved when Iraq and Iran were fighting?? Maybe because our corporations were too busy making profits selling weapons to both sides??
Sounds like what Bush said. “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil.”
You two think alike, apparently. It is like General Zinni said, 'It is those who have never fired a shot who are hot to go to war, we are about to ignite a fuse in that region we will rue the day we ever started.'
Gandhi said love wins in the end. ALWAYS. Course neither Rush nor Bush said that. Of course Bush's favorite philosopher JESUS did, but...
"you only have theories that have been developed by professors who sit at Harvard and Berkley"
Bush ended his service obligation six months early, and left to attend Harvard. Who went to Vietnam in his place?
Who is in Iraq in your place, Lame Game? Why is your life so much better than the soldiers? Do you think you can kill Iraqis from behind a computer? You defend war,yet do not want to serve. Coward
Anonymous complained about the army and how it sucks...yet still had no examples of how simply "talking" solved any major conflicts...
Donkey said something, didn't read it, most likely contained something about "Lame Game" and asking me if I served in the army...very very intelligent stuff.
Force is the only thing the lame Game thinks will solve problems, yet is quite willing to sacrifice your lives for his ideas.
force is not the only thing that can solve "problems" I am talking about major conflicts...
small issues can be worked out through talking.
what example can be given where a major conflict was solved with peace talks...maybe there is one...I can't think of one and I guess neither can any of you...
keep comments to that...maybe I can be proven wrong...it would be better for the world if there were many examples of peace talks changing major conflicts...but it just doesn't work....
once again, just trying to bring up the simple point that the Lefts thinking that war is never the answer is incorrect....sad to say, but so far in the history of the world it is the only answer.
Over 90% of known nation states were wiped out by war, some solution.
"The wise win without a fight, while the ignorant fight so that they can win."
- Sun-Tzu (500BC) Chinese Military Strategist, Philosopher
The post was "war is always what defeats EVIL!"
War IS evil!! Not choosing to start a war of aggression is almost always a good idea!! As Carter did not choose to start a war over the hostages. As Eisenhower was content to engage in a COLD war rather than an actual war. Once war is started, yes, it usually takes war to end it. HOWEVER, that is not what the post was. It was "War is always what defeats EVIL." WAR is EVIL, and WAR always creates more evil. Poverty, starvation, rape, brutality, you name it.
Lonna
Eisenhower knew a bit about war. He said at a press conference in 1954
· “A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility. I don’t believe there is such a thing, and frankly I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked to me about such a thing.”
A living former commander and by all accounts a brilliant man, General Wesley Clark said:
· If we go in (to Iraq) unilaterally, or without the full weight of international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies, if we go in without an effective information operation… we’re liable to supercharge recruiting for al-Qaida.” [that would be creating MORE evil]
Marine General Anthony Zinni, former Head of Central Command for U.S. Forces in the Middle East, echoed that sentiment:
· “It’s pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot, and are hot to go to war, see it another…We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started…”
“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. Dwight D. Eisenhower "I have known war as few men now living know it. It’s very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.” General Douglas MacArthur
MacArthur also said:
· “The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear: Keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.”
“Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism – how passionately I hate them…[we] should not fight for imaginary geographical lines, racial prejudices and private greed draped in the colors of patriotism.” Einstein
United States Marine Commandant General David Shoup who resigned his commission in 1963 because he didn’t believe the Vietnam War was worth the life of one American soldier said in 1966:
· I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. One that they design and want, one that they fight and work for. And if, unfortunately, their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refused to share with the "have nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.
Hal Crowther has recently expounded on the impossibility of a successful occupation in “With Trembling Fingers.”
· …”In Washington, chicken hawks will still be squawking about "digging in" and winning, but Vietnam proved conclusively that no modern war of occupation would ever be won. Every occupation is doomed. The only way you "win" a war of occupation is the old-fashioned way, the way Rome finally defeated the Carthaginians: kill all the fighters, enslave everyone else, raze the cities and sow the fields with salt.
Otherwise the occupied people will fight you to the last peasant, and why shouldn't they? If our presidential election fails to dislodge the crazy bastards who annexed Baghdad, many of us in this country would welcome regime change by any intervention, human or divine. But if, say, the Chinese came in to rescue us--Operation American Freedom--how long would any of us, left-wing or right, put up with an occupying army teaching us Chinese-style democracy? A guerrilla who opposes an invading army on his own soil is not a terrorist, he's a resistance fighter. In Iraq we're not fighting enemies but making enemies. As Richard Clarke and others have observed, every dollar, bullet and American life that we spend in Iraq is one that's not being spent in the war on terrorism. Every Iraqi, every Muslim we kill or torture or humiliate is a precious shot of adrenaline for Osama and al Qaeda.
The irreducible truth is that the invasion of Iraq was the worst blunder, the most staggering miscarriage of judgment, the most fateful, egregious, deceitful abuse of power in the history of American foreign policy. If you don't believe it yet, just keep watching.”
An Iraqi girl blogger wrote advice to Americans on May 7th from Baghdad
· “ don't rape, don't torture, don't kill, and get out while you can -- while it still looks like you have a choice. . . . Chaos? Civil war? We'll take our chances -- just take your puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go."
Eisenhower said: There is no way in which a country can satisfy the craving for absolute security, but it can bankrupt itself morally and economically in attempting to reach that illusory goal through arms alone.” AND
“Controlled, universal disarmament is the imperative of our time. The demand for it by the hundreds of millions whose chief concern is the long future of themselves and their children will, I hope, become so universal and so insistent that no man, no government anywhere, can withstand it.”
and
· “If men can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war include almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man's intelligence and his comprehension... would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.”
General Bradley said:
· “The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.” And General MacArthur said:
“We have had our last chance. If we do not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door.”
When the administration, the media and even Congress were so quick to condemn France and Germany for not backing Bush’s war, had they listened to Eisenhower, they might have at least considered the possibility that the people of those nations were right:
· “If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order.”
Before so cavalierly sending other people’s children off to die in an unnecessary war, they might have remembered what Ike, who never got over the loss of his own child, had to say about that kind of heartbreak:
· “There’s no tragedy in life like the death of a child. Things never get back to the way they were.”
Or Rudyard Kipling, who after his son died in World War I – a war he had initially supported – said in remorse for that support:
· “If any question why we died, tell them because our fathers lied.”
When Bush, and others began speaking of more or less eternal war against our “enemies” I wish someone would have let them know they were not the first people who had espoused that idea. Another war leader had trumpeted much the same concept when he said in the "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
· "And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. . . . War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
The person who made that Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perle/ sounding statement was the father of fascism himself, Benito Mussolini, who also said
· “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and Corporate power.”
The media’s failure to even examine the economic incentive for war might not have happened had they read the words of Albert Pike who said:
· “A war for great principle ennobles a nation. A war for commercial supremacy, upon some shallow pretext is despicable, and more than ought else demonstrates to what immeasurable depths of baseness men and nations can descend.”
Ike said in his farewell address:
· “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”
Marine Major General Smedley Butler who figured out seventy years ago that :
· “War is just a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses… of course it isn’t put that crudely in wartime… It is dressed into speeches about patriotism and love of country and putting one’s shoulder to the wheel, but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket and are safely pocketed... Ther are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-NationalisticCapitalism…
I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps… And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”
General Butler was a “colorful” character. He did not believe in war for corporate profit, but my take on the man is that had he still been alive he would have been the first in line to fight after Pearl Harbor was attacked.
I wish he and Ike would have been alive two years ago to talk some sense into Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz. But then again, I think if General Butler would have been left alone with Bush, he would have taken the ignorant little warmonger into a closet and beat the snot out of him. He would have considered Bush one of the “domestic enemies” it was his duty as a soldier and a patriot to guard America against.
Ike as well as Butler both also recognized the true cost of concentrating on a military solution to all our problems. Ike spoke about this in his farewell address when he said:
· Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms in not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron…
What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road? The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.
The worst is atomic war.
· The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.
· To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace. Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historiab 55-117 AD,
One final quote directed at this administration, who in their eagerness to control the world and to garner contracts for their corporate campaign contributors never wanted any solution to the Iraq problem but war, and for the broadcast media, who in their eagerness for the increased ratings they knew a war would provide, failed to do their job, which is to question the seats of power and to hold them accountable for their actions. In their timidity they also failed to look out for the people – the soldiers who would be sent to their death and maiming for corporate gain, and we taxpayers – especially those among the middle class -- who will be made to pay for it all. To them and to all of us General Omar Bradley said:
“War can be prevented as just as surely as it can be provoked, and we who fail to prevent it must share the guilt for the dead.”
BUT, the Game is right in that military might discourages war by aggressor nations, which, the U.S. now is. Former Special Forces soldier Stan Goff figured out after the first invasion of Haiti that we only attack poor nations that are relatively defenseless. That is why we went to war against Iraq which had NO WMD/s and oil, and NOT against Korea which DOES have WMD's and no oil.
Since the game has ADD, I don't imagine he will read all of this. NOT that he would be swayed by it if he did. AFTER ALL, that GREAT SOLDIER RUSH LIMBAUGH didn't say any of it!!
Lonna
Dwight D. Eisenhower made the quote of a cross of iron , not Butler. The Donkey is sure Lonna knows this but her post needs to reflect it. Also I can not find any proof that Benito Mussolini
said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and Corporate power.” The Donkey finds this quote on web sites but can not find any reputable source that he said this. If you know when he said this or from what speech, The donkey would be interested.
Donkey, I did not attribute that to Butler, I attributed it to "Ike" if you go back and look.
I have never seen anyone challenge the "fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism" quote, although I used one attributed to Caesar that he probably did not really say. I did not use it in this article, though.
Some time I will do a search to try to find where that came from.
I don't remember where I got it. I wrote that article a good year ago, or more, I think.
Lonna
Game, the idea is to keep it from being a major conflict. People don't keep records of wars or conflicts avoided. Many of those have surely happened through time though. They are not noted because peace is expected and war is not.
Your idea that war or violence is the only effective problem solving measure is maniacal, anti-social and demented.
To Lonna;
The Donkey stands corrected, he misread the paragraph, twice.
Link to a soldier's blog. WOW!! His mate's blog was shut down. AND his mate was made to retract anything negative he had said about the war OR his superiors (Bush, Rumsfeld.) This guy will probably be shut down as well. Many soldier's blogs have been shut down. But he has a great post here about why people are not enlisting.
Lonna
http://misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com/
Donkey, here is the origin of the Fascism is coporatism quote. Vice President under FDR talked explained it. This is from Common Dreams. Lonna
"Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But not a government of, by, and for We The People - instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.
In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" - the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.
Vice President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening here in America:
" If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. ... They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead."
Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who had run for political office, and, in Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead of corporate cartels. "American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information..."
Donkey, in response to your "why" of the other day. This is the Arthur Miller quotation I said I would look up.
All the posting I have done on this blog in the last two days, you can tell I don't have a good book!! Making up for the two weeks I was gone. Lonna
Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied.
The New Yorker: Why I Wrote 'The Crucible' (Issue of 1996-10-21)
By the way..continue to lose will be answered a little more than a year from now. Only then will you know.
To Lonna;
http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html
Fascism: Corporatism v. Corporations
Mussolini on the Corporate State
by Chip Berlet
A Google(tm) search on January 12, 2005 turned up some 5,000 hits on the following quote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
It is generally attrributed to an article written by Mussolini in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana with the assistance of Giovanni Gentile, the editor.
The quote, however, does not appear in the Enciclopedia Italiana in the original Italian.
It does not appear in the official English translation of that article:
Benito Mussolini, 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism," Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.
And it does not appear in the longer treatment of the subject by Mussolini in:
Benito Mussolini, 1935, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions," Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.
Where the quote comes from remains a mystery, and while it is possible Mussolini said it someplace at some time, a number of researchers have been unable to find it after months of research.
(If you have a source for the quote based on an actual original document that you copy and mail us, please let us know, and you will receive a free 3-year subscription to the Public Eye magazine)
It is unlikely that Mussolini ever made this statement because it contradicts most of the other writing he did on the subject of corporatism and corporations. When Mussolini wrote about corporatism, he was not writing about modern commercial corporations. He was writing about a form of vertical syndicalist corporatism based on early guilds. The article on Wikipedia on Corporatism explains this rather well.
Here are some typical Mussolini quotes from original documents:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State--a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)
Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)
Yet if anyone cares to read over the now crumbling minutes giving an account of the meetings at which the Italian Fasci di Combattimento were founded, he will find not a doctrine but a series of pointers… (p. 23)
"It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!... I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism." (p. 24)
Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)
The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).
what will be a win for you ron...a few seats?
I would guess you would have to win a few seats back sooner or later...I would say you need to gain control of atleast one part of government before you can say you have won anything
Lame game;
adversus solem ne loquitor ab absurdo, cave quid dicis, quando, et cui
the game said:
what example can be given where a major conflict was solved with peace talks...
I seem to remember our very own Bill Richardson averting some serious war-type threats with the Koreans merely through peace talks...
hhmmm...
*sigh*
I'm sure it was Bill Richardson that stoped North Korea from going to war with us...probably had nothing to do with our huge military...and I don't really think that was a major conflict..
now...when North Korea gets there nuclear weapons program going that Bill Clinton set up for them...maybe they will become more bold..
Hey Lame game;
You are about as entertaining as a child's inflatable punching toy. You bop it, it springs back, you bop it again and you forget it ever existed. It slowly deflates in an unused corner, then one day you throw it away. Calling you dull is a gross underestimation of just how tedious you are. You have the personality of a damp sponge and the appeal of a moldy sweat sock.
God, what would the Republicans do without Bill Clinton?? And could they ever think of ANYTHING on their own?? What would they do without that Sleaze Rush Limbaugh?? All they know is what he says.
From "Bunkers for All Occassions"
by David Plotz in Chatterbox, March 2002
Republican National Committee Chairman Mark Racicot revealed today that the GOP is holding former President Bill Clinton at a secure facility "outside Washington or New York" in case of a devastating attack on those cities. "America will need a scapegoat in case of disaster," said Racicot. "The Republican Party, for the good of the American people, wants to make sure that blaming, conspiracy-theory mongering, and ad hominem attacks can continue uninterrupted. Without President Clinton to attack, Americans will be confused and demoralized. His safety must be our No. 1 priority."
Lonna
once again...can't argue the point or the issue...
Game. Could argue, but it is pointless with people who only have Rush's views -- who do not rely on experts in the field. Larry Wilkerson certainly knows what he is talking about. 41 years in the Marines. So did the CIA guy who wrote Imperial Hubris. So did John Perkins who wrote "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." And Hack, the soldiers soldier, relied on Scott Ritter, whose new book you should read. But you read Ann Coulter.
America has no right to run the world. To tell other countries what they can or cannot do. As I recall, we fought a revolution when England tried to do that to us.
IF it is the threat of military force that keeps other nations from attacking, then all nations should have it. Part of the deal to keep other nations from becoming armed was that we would disarm. Eisenhower believed in that "controlled, universal disarmament is the imperative of our time."
Our founding fathers did not even want us to maintain a standing army.
We are going down because of imperial hubris. We would go down eventually, anyway, but Bush has guaranteed we will go down faster than we would have. All empires crumble, and bush believes he is napoleon. Napoleon went down, too. So did Rome. So did England.
Lonna
To the lame game:
exitus acta probat
Worse, Rush has accused Americans that are exercising their constitutional rights of killing American Soliders, that is call fascism. What is the penalty for treason anyway?
To see the slant to the right in the media visit mediamatters.org. ...I know, I know...Rush tells you its run by a bunch of wacko leftists. Prove to me something they say is untrue. Until then I will take that comment as part of your "eyes wide shut" syndrome.
Game, a win for me would be enough to make you sad. :-)
Game, didn't you ever take a political science class while in college? Study totalitarianism and maybe you will see the correlation between what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and what PNAC is doing now. Hitler had his scapegoat (Jews) and the Right has its (Islamics), both-into fixing the economy by gearing up the war machine, both-into control of the press (Hitler-government/USA-corporate media), both-into world dominance, and both used/use propaganda to achieve their nefarious goals.
I knew when all the flags came out and patriotic songs were being played 24/7 that it was a bad sign. This was militant nationalism to gear a country up for war. Our guys/girls are not fighting for OUR freedom but you'd never know that from listening to Rush, etc.
War is not a healthy place for children. 2005 and it seems we still have War Mongers - Shame that stupidity just keeps passing from one generation to the next. Does anyboy have a different idea - Like peacefful diplomacy. The Maniac
Oh by the way I forgot, "The MANIAC is back"
Post a Comment
<< Home