Reply
Sat 17 May, 2008 02:21 pm
"Where then is the road to peace?"
Quote:Address on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater
Rendezvous with Destiny
October 27, 1964
This speech is a verbatim transcript of "The Speech" given as a portion of a pre-recorded, nationwide televised program sponsored by Goldwater-Miller on behalf of Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for the presidency whom Ronald Reagan actively supported.
4,626 words
...
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.
If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you very much.
Quote:Look at what John McCain, Mr. Foreign Policy Experience, said today while agreeing with Bush's repulsive remarks in Israel:
"Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'' Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.''
The Obama campaign and we in the liberal blogosphere need to jump on these comments. Once again, McCain has demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about foreign policy and American history. First he got confused over Sunnis and Shiites, now this.
McCain seems to be forgetting something kind of important that happened during the Reagan administration.
It's called the Iran-Contra Scandal.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/15/14913/5301/320/516310
The link contains info on Iran-Contra, if anyone has forgotten.
All too many persons confuse statesmanship and appeasement. Jingoism recognizes no accommodation with perceived adversaries. Which is why we need to get Bush and his friends out of office this time.
edgarblythe wrote:All too many persons confuse statesmanship and appeasement. Jingoism recognizes no accommodation with perceived adversaries. Which is why we need to get Bush and his friends out of office this time.
You're right. Too many people do confuse statesmanship with appeasement which explains why so many well intentioned liberals promote appeasement while calling it accomodation.
Reagan rises from the grave to appease Republicans for their nomination choice of McSame!
sozobe wrote:Quote:Look at what John McCain, Mr. Foreign Policy Experience, said today while agreeing with Bush's repulsive remarks in Israel:
"Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'' Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.''
The Obama campaign and we in the liberal blogosphere need to jump on these comments. Once again, McCain has demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about foreign policy and American history. First he got confused over Sunnis and Shiites, now this.
McCain seems to be forgetting something kind of important that happened during the Reagan administration.
It's called the Iran-Contra Scandal.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/15/14913/5301/320/516310
The link contains info on Iran-Contra, if anyone has forgotten.
What does Iran-Contra have to do with the Iranian Hostage situation?
The hostages held in Iran were taken prisoner during the administration of Jimmy Carter.
They were held for 444 days, and were released on the same day that Reagan was sworn in to office.
Reagan had made it very clear during his campaign that he was prepared to use force immediately to go rescue the hostages, and Iran apparently believed him.
The Iran-Contra case had absolutely nothing to do with the hostages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ir/Iranhost.html
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/03/jenkins/jenkins.htm
Those are just a few references you can find on google.
There are about 639,000 references on google.
And nowhere does anyone except you suggest that Iran- Contra had anything to do with the hostage crisis.
I didn't say Iran-Contra had anything to do with
THE hostage crisis, though it had quite a lot to do with
A hostage crisis.
Wikipedia
Quote:The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal which was revealed in 1986 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration. It began as an operation to increase U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein Israel would ship weapons to a moderate, politically influential group of Iranians opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni; the U.S. would reimburse Israel with those weapons and receive payment from Israel. The moderate Iranians agreed to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the terrorist group Hezbollah. The plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages, without the authorization of President Ronald Reagan. Large modifications to the plan were conjured by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985. In North's plan, a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua. While President Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the Contra cause, he did not authorize this plan, nor was he aware that the funds were being sent to the Contras.
After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages. The investigation was compounded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials. On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."
If Reagan is to be believed, he didn't preside over the arms-for-hostages part. But he definitely presided over "a strategic opening to Iran."
Additionally, as you say, McCain is incorrect because Reagan had nothing to do with THE Iran Hostages crisis except for blustering during his campaign -- unless you give credence to the October Surprise conspiracy:
Quote: The October Surprise conspiracy was an alleged plot that claimed representatives of the 1980 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign had conspired with Islamic Republic of Iran to delay the release of 52 Americans held hostage in Tehran until after the 1980 U.S. Presidential election. In exchange for their cooperation, the United States would supply weapons to Iran as well as unfreeze Iran's monetary assets being held by the US government.
Jimmy Carter had been attempting to deal with the Iran hostage crisis and the hostile regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini for nearly a year. Those who assert that a deal was made allege that certain Republicans with CIA connections, including George H. W. Bush, arranged to have the hostages held through October, until Reagan could defeat Carter in early November, and then be released, thereby preventing an "October surprise" from the Carter administration in which the hostages would be released shortly before the election. The hostages were released the day of Reagan's inauguration, twenty minutes after his inaugural address.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:edgarblythe wrote:All too many persons confuse statesmanship and appeasement. Jingoism recognizes no accommodation with perceived adversaries. Which is why we need to get Bush and his friends out of office this time.
You're right. Too many people do confuse statesmanship with appeasement which explains why so many well intentioned liberals promote appeasement while calling it accomodation.
Which brings me back to reiterate: jingoists cannot see the need for statesmanship. They prefer to belittle those who suggest it.
"These students want disruption. They seek to prove that this system of ours, when faced with crisis, does not work. If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with!"
'Reagan's comment set the stage for national brutality on US college campuses. The brutal thug Reagan forever had the blood of Kent State students and others on his hands forever."
blueflame1 wrote:"These students want disruption. They seek to prove that this system of ours, when faced with crisis, does not work. If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with!"
'Reagan's comment set the stage for national brutality on US college campuses. The brutal thug Reagan forever had the blood of Kent State students and others on his hands forever."
How?
Reagan wasnt in the WH at the time.
It was the Presidents in power at the time (Johnson, Nixon) that would bear ANY responsibility for Kent state, not REagan.
mysteryman, Reagan set the trend. " If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with!"
blueflame1 wrote:mysteryman, Reagan set the trend. " If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with!"
So a comment by an (at the time) unemployed actor now sets national domestic policy???
You are getting more deranged with your hatred for anything Republican, arent you.
mysteryman, what I love counts. The right to assemble and dissent. Due process. Habeas corpus. The Constitution and Bill of rights. Hopefully Obama will restore all those.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is as strong today as anytime in our history. This is not the first time in our history that Habeas Corpus, and/or "due process", were suspended to meet a threat within the country. The courts remain open and functioning normally for all but a very small number of individuals who are associated in some manner with the international Radical Islamic Movement.
Even in the best of times, innocent people get ground up in the gears of our justice system. It is an imperfect system, but superior to any alternatives outside the Common Law nations. We still go to great lengths to avoid injustice, but when the safety of the public at large is in the balance, most judges and administrators will choose public safety over a single individuals rights when the cost of error is anything like 9/11.
The war that the Radical Islamic Movement brought to our shores isn't over yet. The Taliban retreated to safe havens in the wilds along the northern border of Pakistan, and they fully expect to return in triumph to Afghanistan. The radical religious schools of Saudi Arabia are still turning out suicidal zealots in large numbers. Terrorist organizations based in Palestine and Syria remain active and murderous. Governments friendly to the West are still struggling with radicalized populations who would love to step up the Jihad tempo. Iran continues to instigate and supply terrorists working inside Iraq to keep that fledgling democracy in chaos. Iran is anti-Israel, anti-United States, and anti-Western, and believes that they can win a complete victory over the infidel by force and threat.
This is a very serious threat to our national security, and way of life. This is a fight that must not be lost, even if it takes decades to win. I believe that the Radical Islamic Movement can be defeated, and at least made relatively harmless if the United States remains strong, and engaged.
Once the threat is contained, then the temporary and minimal constraints on how terrorist defendants are handled will change. Now is not the time to quit, to throw up our hands and declare that the principle of the thing is worth another 9/11, or worse.
Re: A Time for Choosing
Ticomaya wrote:
This speech is a verbatim transcript of "The Speech" given as a portion of a pre-recorded, nationwide televised program sponsored by Goldwater-Miller on behalf of Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for the presidency whom Ronald Reagan actively supported.
4,626 words
...
Tico,
Why is it not at all surprising that you've chosen a felon/war criminal to put forward positions that
you support.
its weird when people talk about the contras, i eman its so deep, you cant even imagine.
Do you guys know how the crack game works? its pretty amazing when you see the whole picture...
the WHOLE picture.
what was that? months ago a plane crashed full of tons of cocaine and its last stop was, was , wtf?
guantanamo bay? isn't that military aircraft only?
and its registration lead back to where?
oh the CIA? pshhh.....
NO WAY!
Asherman wrote:The Constitution and Bill of Rights is as strong today as anytime in our history. This is not the first time in our history that Habeas Corpus, and/or "due process", were suspended to meet a threat within the country. The courts remain open and functioning normally for all but a very small number of individuals who are associated in some manner with the international Radical Islamic Movement.
Even in the best of times, innocent people get ground up in the gears of our justice system. It is an imperfect system, but superior to any alternatives outside the Common Law nations. We still go to great lengths to avoid injustice, but when the safety of the public at large is in the balance, most judges and administrators will choose public safety over a single individuals rights when the cost of error is anything like 9/11.
The war that the Radical Islamic Movement brought to our shores isn't over yet. The Taliban retreated to safe havens in the wilds along the northern border of Pakistan, and they fully expect to return in triumph to Afghanistan. The radical religious schools of Saudi Arabia are still turning out suicidal zealots in large numbers. Terrorist organizations based in Palestine and Syria remain active and murderous. Governments friendly to the West are still struggling with radicalized populations who would love to step up the Jihad tempo. Iran continues to instigate and supply terrorists working inside Iraq to keep that fledgling democracy in chaos. Iran is anti-Israel, anti-United States, and anti-Western, and believes that they can win a complete victory over the infidel by force and threat.
This is a very serious threat to our national security, and way of life. This is a fight that must not be lost, even if it takes decades to win. I believe that the Radical Islamic Movement can be defeated, and at least made relatively harmless if the United States remains strong, and engaged.
Once the threat is contained, then the temporary and minimal constraints on how terrorist defendants are handled will change. Now is not the time to quit, to throw up our hands and declare that the principle of the thing is worth another 9/11, or worse.
yeah i mean jetfuel is commonly used to perfectly demolish buildings thata re some of the tallest in the world.
You absolutely right.
Jetfuel, the next wave of demolition goodness.
pretty soon those demo companies are gonna be buyin jet fuel right up.
and usin it to demolish buildings.
yep.
Re: A Time for Choosing
JTT wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
This speech is a verbatim transcript of "The Speech" given as a portion of a pre-recorded, nationwide televised program sponsored by Goldwater-Miller on behalf of Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for the presidency whom Ronald Reagan actively supported.
4,626 words
...
Tico,
Why is it not at all surprising that you've chosen a felon/war criminal to put forward positions that
you support.
Please list what felonies or war crimes Reagan was convicted of, along with the court case # and the court that convicted of.
Also, please list what his sentence was for each conviction.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:edgarblythe wrote:All too many persons confuse statesmanship and appeasement. Jingoism recognizes no accommodation with perceived adversaries. Which is why we need to get Bush and his friends out of office this time.
You're right. Too many people do confuse statesmanship with appeasement which explains why so many well intentioned liberals promote appeasement while calling it accomodation.
If you clowns didn't have buzzwords and straw men, you'd be left speechless.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace