Iranians Shrug Off Obama - America Soon To Follow?

[DiveCon]

Trotskyists are NOT extremists?

Irving Kristol

Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist.
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.
wiki

Washington Post

which proves MY point, not yours

So...Trotsykism is NOT extremist, thank you Dive, now we know what you consider moderate...

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.

LOL you are a fucking moron, since when is marxism a right wing idea?

 

[rhodescholar]

Neocons don't wan't war, they just realize that many times in recent histroy, the best solution for an intractable conflict was the use of military force.

 

[Sinatra]

JFK was a neocon - at the very least a participant in neocon practice. (neocons tend to be Jewish after all...)

Kennedy's primary policy speechifier, Aurther Schlesinger, was himself linked to the neocon movement. The Schlesinger branch of liberal anti-communism that began back in the Truman era saw the United States engaged in a world-wide struggle against communism - primarily the Soviet Union. This is not to say Schlesinger himself was a neocon in the modern sense persay, but he certainly shared many a philisophical bent with the traditional social liberal neocons of his own time. Much of Schlesinger's late-life disenchantment from the prevailing neocons was out of contempt for their influence - and the lack of his own.

JFK was a neocon...

 

[Bfgrn]

JFK was a neocon - at the very least a participant in neocon practice. (neocons tend to be Jewish after all...)

Kennedy's primary policy speechifier, Aurther Schlesinger, was himself linked to the neocon movement. The Schlesinger branch of liberal anti-communism that began back in the Truman era saw the United States engaged in a world-wide struggle against communism - primarily the Soviet Union. This is not to say Schlesinger himself was a neocon in the modern sense persay, but he certainly shared many a philisophical bent with the traditional social liberal neocons of his own time. Much of Schlesinger's late-life disenchantment from the prevailing neocons was out of contempt for their influence - and the lack of his own.

JFK was a neocon...

Being anti-communism in the 50's and 60's was pretty much everyone in America...

The philosophies of neocons that set them apart is their strong belief in aggressive militarism, interventionism, unilateral military actions and disdain for multinational organizations like the UN...

JFK's beliefs are the antithesis to ALL of those beliefs...

I strongly suggest you get to know the Man, John Kennedy, before you make such ridiculous accusations...

Start HERE...

Commencement Address at American University

President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
June 10, 1963

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 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 globe and to generations yet unborn.

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.

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. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.





And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
President John F. Kennedy