4
   

Does "the unity" here refer to "the unity of our country/people/the United States of America"?

 
 
Reply Mon 3 Feb, 2014 09:41 am

Context:

MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 1969

  Senator Dirksen, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, President Johnson, Vice President Humphrey, my fellow Americans--and my fellow citizens of the world community:

  I ask you to share with me today the majesty of this moment. In the orderly transfer of power, we celebrate the unity that keeps us free.

  Each moment in history is a fleeting time, precious and unique. But some stand out as moments of beginning, in which courses are set that shape decades or centuries.

  This can be such a moment.

  Forces now are converging that make possible, for the first time, the hope that many of man's deepest aspirations can at last be realized. The spiraling pace of change allows us to contemplate, within our own lifetime, advances that once would have taken centuries.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 1,098 • Replies: 28

 
View best answer, chosen by oristarA
InfraBlue
  Selected Answer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Feb, 2014 10:36 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
Does "the unity" here refer to "the unity of our country/people/the United States of America"?

Yes.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2014 05:49 am
@InfraBlue,
Thank you.
What is the antecedent of that in " that make possible"? Forces?
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2014 06:41 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
What is the antecedent of that in " that make possible"? Forces?


Yes.

"Forces now are converging that make possible, for the first time, the hope..."

Converging forces make possible the hope...

Forces now are converging that make possible, for the first time, the hope...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2014 08:48 am
@oristarA,
  I ask you to share with me today the majesty of this moment. In the orderly transfer of power, we celebrate the unity that keeps us free.

-------------------

What a monstrous joke! Unrelenting streams of pablum for the sheeple.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2014 10:35 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

  I ask you to share with me today the majesty of this moment. In the orderly transfer of power, we celebrate the unity that keeps us free.

-------------------

What a monstrous joke! Unrelenting streams of pablum for the sheeple.


In my opinion, the orderly transfer of power" is a miracle in political worlds.
Nixon said it proud, prouder than JTT, which I appreciate.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2014 08:22 pm
@oristarA,
Nixon said it proud, ... which I appreciate.

-------------

Do you also appreciate the fact that Nixon was a felon, a vicious war criminal, a terrorist and just an all round dick, Ori?
oristarA
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2014 09:39 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Nixon said it proud, ... which I appreciate.

-------------

Do you also appreciate the fact that Nixon was a felon, a vicious war criminal, a terrorist and just an all round dick, Ori?


Keep on topic, please?
Unless I've checked up all or almost all stuff about Nixon, I will not jump to conclusion to deem he's what what.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2014 10:09 pm
@oristarA,
The topic is Nixon and his fatuous nonsense. And his fatuous nonsense pales into insignificance measured against Nixon the felon, Nixon the war criminal, Nixon the terrorist.
Jack of Hearts
 
  0  
Reply Tue 4 Feb, 2014 10:50 pm
@JTT,
Significantly opening trade relations with Red China, was held by Nixon to be his administration's greatest achievement. What say you? (And when did we drop the "Red" from China?)
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 07:53 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

The topic is Nixon and his fatuous nonsense. And his fatuous nonsense pales into insignificance measured against Nixon the felon, Nixon the war criminal, Nixon the terrorist.


Your judgement of this Nixon the felon will be ignored unless you've demonstrated your political platform to show your superiority.

You always say NO NO NO to others. Yet the true answer is YES YES YES in a constructive manner.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 03:33 pm
@Jack of Hearts,
I can't fathom any good reason to discuss Nixon other than his myriad war crimes, Jack. Or his felonies.

The guy who famously pronounced, "I am not a crook" was just that, a crook and much much worse.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Feb, 2014 03:38 pm
@oristarA,
What is "constructive" about being a war criminal/felon/terrorist/mass murderer, Ori?

-----------

Richard Nixon at 100: not just criminal, but treasonous too

If the passage of time ever tempts us to soften our view of Tricky Dick, just recall the treason that helped swing the 1968 election

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/richard-nixon-100-criminal-traitor

oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2014 10:49 am
@JTT,

Well, I copied it:
It is suspicious. No other media exposed it?

Quote:
Richard Nixon at 100: not just criminal, but treasonous too
If the passage of time ever tempts us to soften our view of Tricky Dick, just recall the treason that helped swing the 1968 election
Thursday 10 January 2013 10.24 EST

Richard Nixon and running-mate Spiro Agnew in 1968. Photograph: AP
Michael Cohen
Thursday 10 January 2013 10.24 EST

Sign up for the Comment is free email The most shared comment, analysis and editorial articles delivered every weekday lunchtime.
This week saw the 100th birthday of America's 37th president, Richard Milhous Nixon.

With the benefit of hindsight, Nixon has one of the most remarkable political legacies of any figure in modern American history – winner of four national elections (as president and vice-presidential), on a presidential ballot every year but one from 1952 to 1972, and one of the most dominating political personalities of the second half of the 20th century.

Here was the man who "went to China", spurred détente with the Soviets, signed into law the establishment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), took America off the gold standard and ended the Vietnam war.

Of course, on the flip side, he also prolonged the Vietnam war, obstructed justice from the Oval Office, used the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to go after his political enemies, launched an illegal war in Cambodia, waged a dirty tricks campaign against his opponents, placed Spiro Agnew a heartbeat from the presidency, kept an "enemies list", was recorded in the Oval Office describing Jews as "aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious" and Italians as not having their "heads screwed on tight", ended the Vietnam war with neither peace nor honor, was impeached by Congress, resigned the presidency and left a permanent stain on American democracy … and those are just some of this greatest hits.

Oh, and also, he committed treason.

Now, that is not my description; rather, it reflects the view of President Lyndon B Johnson, who, in the final days of the 1968 presidential election, became convinced that Richard Nixon (who eventually won the race) and his campaign associates were working surreptitiously with the South Vietnamese government to obstruct peace talks between the US and North Vietnam. It is one of the most duplicitous and pernicious moments in Nixon's political career – which, considering his larger crimes, is really saying something.

To provide a bit of context to the charge, it's necessary to step back to the 1968 election. After tumultuous violence and a "police riot" at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Nixon entered the fall campaign with a double-digit lead over his Democratic opponent, Hubert Humphrey, and third party candidate George Wallace. Battered over the war in Vietnam and the anti-war sentiment within the party, Humphrey looked like a political dead man walking.

Few at the time believed that Nixon could lose, so insurmountable did his lead appear. But in late September, Vice-President Humphrey broke with Johnson at a speech in Salt Lake City when he called for a conditional bombing halt in Vietnam. At the same time, Humphrey's old union allies launched a massive effort to discredit the surging Wallace and convince their members to pull the lever once again for the Democrats.

Practically overnight, Humphrey's fortunes shifted. His campaign crowds got larger, anti-war hecklers who had bedeviled him for weeks disappeared, fundraising improved and his poll numbers steadily began to improve. With a week to go before election day, an election that had once seemed like a foregone conclusion was now suddenly a contest.

And then came the "October surprise": a potential breakthrough with the North Vietnamese that held the promise of peace talks in Paris and a hope for an end to the war. On 31 October, Johnson announced an eagerly-awaited bombing halt over North Vietnam. The prospects of "peace at hand", many believed, would represent the final piece of the puzzle for the greatest political comeback since Truman in 1948.

But it was not to be – and in no small part because of Richard Nixon.

The final wrinkle in the negotiations with North Vietnam was the inclusion of the South Vietnamese government at the Paris talks. For obvious reasons, the South Vietnamese leadership was fearful of where such talks might lead – a US withdrawal could spell the end of their government and their nation. But refusing to attend negotiations in Paris would risk the ire of their US allies.

Luckily for them, they had another ally: the Nixon campaign, which was desperately trying to convince South Vietnam's President Thieu to skip the talks and hold out for a better deal if Nixon was to become president.

Enter the most fascinating figure in this tale of intrigue: Anna Chennault, the Chinese-born widow of General Claire Chennault, commander of the legendary Flying Tigers that ran missions in Burma and China during the second world war. She was a woman for whom the cold war was less a geopolitical and ideological struggle, and more a vocation.


Anna Chennault, with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, in 1972 As strident anti-Communist who had long been involved in Republican politics, Chennault served as a back channel for the Nixon campaign to South Vietnam's ambassador to the United States, Bui Diem. Released FBI intercepts show that Chennault was passing messages to Diem urging him to tell the government in Saigon to refuse to attend talks in Paris. Moreover, she was at the same time communicating with Nixon's campaign manager, John Mitchell, who told her he was "speaking on behalf of Mr Nixon. It's very important that our Vietnamese friends understand our Republican position and I hope you have made that clear to them."

It was one of many contacts between the two – contacts that continued even after the 31 October bombing halt speech. In fact, Chennault told Diem to tell Saigon that her "boss" wanted to tell "Diem's boss", to "hold on, we are gonna win." As for who this shadowy "boss" was – well, he had just called her from New Mexico, said Chennault. By sheer coincidence, Spiro Agnew happened to be in Albuquerque that day.

By even less coincidence, Thieu went before a joint session of the South Vietnamese national assembly several days after Johnson's 31 October announcement and said that his government would be not going to Paris, effectively torpedoing the talks and dealing a blow to Humphrey's election chances.

Clark Clifford, who was secretary of defense at the time, offers in his memoirs one of the most authoritative takes on the Chennault incident – and perhaps its most damning indictment:

"What was conveyed to Thieu through the Chennault channel may never fully be known, but there was no doubt that she conveyed a simple and authoritative message from the Nixon camp that was probably decisive in convincing President Thieu to defy President Johnson – thus delaying the negotiations and prolonging the war."

Now, it should be said that there is a real question of whether the South Vietnamese would have participated in talks even without Nixon's intervention; and of course, there's no guarantee that the war would have ended sooner if they had come to Paris. In addition, it's far from clear that Humphrey would have won the 1968 election if Thieu had not refused to attend the talks. But certainly, it is very possible that the war might have ended sooner, and countless lives might have been saved – if Nixon had not muddied the waters with the South Vietnamese.

We, of course, know about the incident now with hindsight. What can definitely be said about it was that Nixon and his associates were integrally involved in an effort to derail a US diplomatic initiative to end the war in Vietnam – and for the most appalling of purposes: to win Richard Nixon a presidential election.

While much of this history has been known for years, it is oddly one of the most forgotten elements of Nixon's odious record in the public spotlight. On some level, though, it is the greatest possible metaphor for Nixon's legacy: that he would without scruple place personal aggrandizement ahead of the national interest.

It's a worthwhile reminder that if one were ever moved to give Richard Nixon the benefit of the doubt, the urge must be resisted.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 6 Feb, 2014 07:10 pm
@oristarA,


"What the press do is they tell you lies, lies they already know you want to hear. The press can figure out what its readers or viewers believe, and make a hell of a living pandering to their egos and telling them that they're smart. They lie and tell the audience they are right, and they never have to change your mind about anything. And the audience rewards them, lauding them and paying them money to keep hearing those sweet, self-serving lies."

Allan Uthman

--------------------------

"The media are a pitiful lot. They don't give us any history, they don't give us any analysis, they don't tell us anything. They don't raise the most basic questions: Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world by far? Who has used weapons of mass destruction more than any other nation? Who has killed more people in this world with weapons of mass destruction than any other nation? The answer: the United States."

Howard Zinn
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Feb, 2014 02:49 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:



"What the press do is they tell you lies, lies they already know you want to hear. The press can figure out what its readers or viewers believe, and make a hell of a living pandering to their egos and telling them that they're smart. They lie and tell the audience they are right, and they never have to change your mind about anything. And the audience rewards them, lauding them and paying them money to keep hearing those sweet, self-serving lies."

Allan Uthman



Let me remind you of the fact that the article Richard Nixon at 100, which you've so eagerly recommended, is exactly from one of the media: The Guardian, which is exactly one part of the press. Thus you yourself have denied what you've argued here, JTT.

JTT wrote:


"The media are a pitiful lot. They don't give us any history, they don't give us any analysis, they don't tell us anything. They don't raise the most basic questions: Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world by far? Who has used weapons of mass destruction more than any other nation? Who has killed more people in this world with weapons of mass destruction than any other nation? The answer: the United States."

Howard Zinn


So far two atomic bombs Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki to repay Japanese Pearl Harbor Attack and Nanking Massacre and the crime of Unit 731 to stop WWII. The weapons of mass destruction were used properly in most people's eyes by the United States.





JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Feb, 2014 07:03 am
@oristarA,
The Guardian is not USA media.

The USA let the folks of Unit 731 go free in exchange for all their dirty secrets. You see, the USA doesn't care about justice for others, they only care about advancing their position in the world to rape and pillage.


------------------------
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

American grant of immunity
After Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allies in 1945, Douglas MacArthur became the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, rebuilding Japan during the Allied occupation. MacArthur secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731, including their leader, in exchange for providing America, but not the other wartime allies, with their research on biological warfare.[9] American occupation authorities monitored the activities of former unit members, including reading and censoring their mail.[32] The U.S. believed that the research data was valuable. The U.S. did not want other nations, particularly the Soviet Union, to acquire data on biological weapons.[33]

The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal heard only one reference to Japanese experiments with "poisonous serums" on Chinese civilians. This took place in August 1946 and was instigated by David Sutton, assistant to the Chinese prosecutor. The Japanese defense counselor argued that the claim was vague and uncorroborated and it was dismissed by the tribunal president, Sir William Webb, for lack of evidence. The subject was not pursued further by Sutton, who was likely unaware of Unit 731's activities. His reference to it at the trial is believed to have been accidental.

Separate Soviet trials
Although publicly silent on the issue at the Tokyo Trials, the Soviet Union pursued the case and prosecuted twelve top military leaders and scientists from Unit 731 and its affiliated biological-war prisons Unit 1644 in Nanjing, and Unit 100 in Changchun, in the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. Included among those prosecuted for war crimes including germ warfare was General Otozō Yamada, the commander-in-chief of the million-man Kwantung Army occupying Manchuria.

The trial of those captured Japanese perpetrators was held in Khabarovsk in December 1949. A lengthy partial transcript of the trial proceedings was published in different languages the following year by a Moscow foreign languages press, including an English language edition.[34] The lead prosecuting attorney at the Khabarovsk trial was Lev Smirnov, who had been one of the top Soviet prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials. The Japanese doctors and army commanders who had perpetrated the Unit 731 experiments received sentences from the Khabarovsk court ranging from two to 25 years in a Siberian labor camp. The Americans refused to acknowledge the trials, branding them communist propaganda.[35]
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Feb, 2014 10:04 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

The Guardian is not USA media.

The USA let the folks of Unit 731 go free in exchange for all their dirty secrets. You see, the USA doesn't care about justice for others, they only care about advancing their position in the world to rape and pillage.



1) UK used to be an ally of US, okay?
2) It is a case of choosing the lesser evil. If US didn't let go of Shiro Ishii, he'd destroyed the data and the 10,000 victims would have died in vain.
But a lesser evil is still evil, and we all know that.

"they only care about advancing their position in the world to rape and pillage"? Rape who? Pillage who?
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 7 Feb, 2014 12:09 pm
@oristarA,
Ori: 2) It is a case of choosing the lesser evil. If US didn't let go of Shiro Ishii, he'd destroyed the data and the 10,000 victims would have died in vain.

------------

?? If US didn't let go of Shiro Ishii, ??

If the US hadn't let SI go, ...

let sb go/ let sb off
X Let off sb/ let go sb x
No 'of'. 'of' is used in the literal meaning, not in this figurative one you have used - "let go of my hand."

X he'd destroyed x

He'd have destroyed/ he would have destroyed

English lesson over. The USA didn't want the data for any altruistic reasons. The USA didn't and doesn't give a rat's ass about those people save for propaganda purposes. The USA constantly trades innocents' lives to get things they want.

Rape and pillage the poor countries of the world:

--------------------------
FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO LIBYA:

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

by Dr. Zoltan Grossman

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2011.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Feb, 2014 08:36 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Ori: 2) It is a case of choosing the lesser evil. If US didn't let go of Shiro Ishii, he'd destroyed the data and the 10,000 victims would have died in vain.

------------

?? If US didn't let go of Shiro Ishii, ??

If the US hadn't let SI go, ...

let sb go/ let sb off
X Let off sb/ let go sb x
No 'of'. 'of' is used in the literal meaning, not in this figurative one you have used - "let go of my hand."

X he'd destroyed x

He'd have destroyed/ he would have destroyed

English lesson over.


The list is too long. I'm reading.
Now just talk about the English lesson.
My dictionary says:
let go of
v.
release, as from one's grip

This definition obviously verifies the accuracy of my use of "let go of."
What do you say, JTT?
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does "the unity" here refer to "the unity of our country/people/the United States of America"?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 12:10:04