You might want to read on down, with regard to what Truman had to say:
*The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by Communists, who defy the government's authority at a number of points, particularly along the northern boundaries. A Commission appointed by the United Nations security Council is at present investigating disturbed conditions in northern Greece and alleged border violations along the frontier between Greece on the one hand and Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia on the other. * * * *Meanwhile, the Greek Government is unable to cope with the situation. The Greek army is small and poorly equipped. It needs supplies and equipment if it is to restore the authority of the government throughout Greek territory. Greece must have assistance if it is to become a self-supporting and self-respecting democracy. * * * *The United States must supply that assistance. We have already extended to Greece certain types of relief and economic aid but these are inadequate. * ** ** President Truman, March 12, 1947 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/trudoc.asp What Truman did, and what became known as the Truman doctrine, was a "tit for tat" scenario with the Soviets. We were not going to allow Soviet expansionism throughout the world, and we nipped it in the bud in South Korea, as well as Viet Nam for over a decade. I think it important to note that we never lost a battle in Viet Nam, and I reject the notion that we lost a war in Viet Nam. We allowed for a liberal media to influence the political machinations of the era, and it was in fact a mistake for President Ford not to have gone back in and wiped Hanoi off of the map in 1975, but I digress. I could end up writing an epistle on this topic, but I do opine that this was a defining moment in our Nation, and what was the initial split between conservative politics and the socialist/communist movement in this Nation. On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:57 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]>wrote: > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and > there > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including > Viet > Nam > --- > are you implying that communism was a direct threat to our > sovereignty? > if so, then wouldn't you say that socialism is a direct threat? > > You may in fact disagree with the logic, (and like most > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine > ---- > Truman: > I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own > destinies in their own way. > Speech to a joint session of the US Congress (12 March 1947), > outlining what became known as The Truman Doctrine. > > All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends > his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do > what they are supposed to do anyway. > > Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish > ship in Palistine. Told him I would talk to Gen[eral] Marshall about > it. He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of > proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs. Henry > brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis > and they stayed. When the country went backward — and Republican in > the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the DP [Displaced > Person] program. The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care > not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks > get murdered or mistreated as DP as long as the Jews get special > treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political > neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or > mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no > difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, > Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who > remember their past condition when prosperity comes. > > On Oct 3, 11:08 am, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey PlainOl', > > > > Israel is a conundrum, and not a good example of other hot spots in the > > world, albeit they are right in the middle of several issues. > > > > To the point, if any Nation does any act that would threaten the > sovereignty > > of the United States, then I think we have the right to intervene. Thus, > > when there are those who are not identified with a Nation-State, but are > > devout on seeing Islam return to its glory of the 11th and 12th > centuries, > > then yes, I think we have every right to intervene. So was the case with > > Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq (which we believed was a potential threat in > > 2003) and Pakistan just last year, when we violated Pakistan's > soveriegnty > > to go in and emasculate Osama bin Laden. > > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and > there > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including Viet > > Nam, and Iraq. You may in fact disagree with the logic, (and like most > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine with the case of Viet Nam) > > and/or be intent on revising contemporary history, but again, I can think > of > > no incidents. (Maybe the Spanish American War....) > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, plainolamerican > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would we as a Nation have a right to interfere > > > --- > > > yes ... even to the extent of dismantling their government, if > > > necessary > > > but, remember, this is not about controlling resources or protecting > > > one foreign government from another > > > > > backatcha: > > > If the US stops providing military support to israel and their enemies > > > attack them should we interfere? > > > remember, israel has spied on us, killed our soldiers, corrupted our > > > politicians and promotes socialism in our nation > > > > > On Oct 3, 9:50 am, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey PlainOl', (And Michael, Bruce, and all other Ron Paul Supporters > > > here > > > > in PF!) > > > > > > I have a question, I think it's rather simple. I am going to give a > > > > hypothetical: > > > > > > "If Mexico decides to revert back to 19th or early 20th century > > > technology, > > > > and the Nation chooses to dump all of its sewers, waste streams both > > > > residential and commercial, (which would potentially include > chemical > > > waste > > > > and toxins, leachates, etc.) into a system that is untreated, and > the > > > > stream of waste is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where the Nation > of > > > > Mexico builds a pipe in international waters to divert this stream > away > > > from > > > > its coast, where eventually, it is going to end up on American > beaches > > > and > > > > shorelines, would we as a Nation have a right to interfere, or to > stop > > > such > > > > a waste stream?" > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, plainolamerican > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, people like > > > > > Woodrow Wilson began supposing that we had the right and duty to be > > > > > the world’s keepers, and they have proceeded to mess things up > around > > > > > the world ever since. > > > > > ---- > > > > > spot on! > > > > > > > those who think the US should interfere in the internal affairs of > > > > > other nations and fund their militaries should fight and fund their > > > > > own charities without US tax dollars and soldiers > > > > > > > you're either an American or something else > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 10:05 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Folliesby Thomas E. Woods, > Jr. > > > > > > Some time agoThe American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord claimed Ron > Paul’s > > > > > foreign policy of nonintervention was "liberal," and that > conservatives > > > are > > > > > supposed to be hawkish on foreign policy. Now to some extent, no > one > > > really > > > > > cares about these labels, and who qualifies as what. But it is > > > obviously > > > > > false to say that supporters of nonintervention must be > left-liberals. > > > I > > > > > showed this in my YouTube response, which dismantled Lord’s entire > > > position: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8&feature=player_embeddedIfi...beit. > There is no wiggle room left for Lord after that. > > > > > As Gary North put it, "The lesson here is simple: don’t get Woods > on > > > your > > > > > case if you are saying really stupid things about American > history." > > > > > > Yet hecame back for more. With a busy schedule both personally > and > > > > > professionally, I have only now had the time to respond, which I’m > > > doing in > > > > > a series of bullet points. > > > > > > 1) I pointed out in the video that the anti-imperialist movement > in > > > the > > > > > late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by the > > > > > conservatives, as historian William Leuchtenberg has noted. I > likewise > > > > > pointed out that we may count on one hand the number of > Progressives > > > who > > > > > opposed U.S. entry into World War I. I further noted that the > recent > > > > > interventions Lord supports were likewise supported by Hillary > Clinton, > > > > > Howard Stern, theNew York Times, and theWashington Post(among > others I > > > > > mentioned). Before Lord goes attacking other people for their > tactical > > > > > alliances, he might make note of the beam in his own eye. > > > > > > Lord does not acknowledge any of this. I wouldn’t, either, were I > in > > > his > > > > > shoes. > > > > > > 2) Lord is obsessed with Ronald Reagan, and again condemns Ron > Paul > > > for > > > > > opposing Reagan’s expansion of government power. The weird cult of > > > > > personality around the deceased former president reveals that > Reagan > > > has > > > > > become the Right’s Obama: a man whose every action is to be treated > as > > > ipso > > > > > facto brilliant, perhaps even divinely inspired. Critics are mere > > > heretics > > > > > whose arguments need not actually be refuted; the mere fact that > they > > > have > > > > > disagreed with the Great Leader is enough to condemn them forever. > > > > > > How dare you say Ronald Reagan wasn’t free-market enough! He > > > supported > > > > > the free market to the precisely correct extent, says the Supreme > > > Neocon > > > > > Council. > > > > > > That Lord is more interested in someone’s loyalty toa manthan he > is > > > in > > > > > loyalty to the principles that the man was supposed to represent, > is > > > the > > > > > classic expression of a cult of personality. > > > > > > 3) In pointing out that Felix Morley, one of the founding editors > of > > > the > > > > > weekly conservative newspaperHuman Events, was himself a > > > noninterventionist, > > > > > it was obviously not my intention to argue thatHuman Eventsfavors > > > > > nonintervention abroad as an editorial position. I myself have been > > > > > published and interviewed numerous times inHuman Events, so I’m > quite > > > > > familiar with its editorial line. The point is that Lord describes > > > > > nonintervention as a "liberal" (as in left-liberal, not classical > > > liberal) > > > > > position. As long as I can find some indisputably non-liberal > > > supporters of > > > > > nonintervention, I win. No one in his right mind would consider > Morley > > > a > > > > > left-liberal. But Morley is simply Exhibit A. > > > > > > 4) Here’s Exhibit B: Lord’s own superior atThe American > Spectator, > > > senior > > > > > editor Angelo Codevilla. Speaking on the Mike Church Show about the > > > > > bipartisan foreign-policy consensus to which Lord and Levin > subscribe, > > > > > Codevilla said:This is a radical departure from the way that > America’s > > > > > status in the world was built in the first place. It was built by a > > > founding > > > > > generation and the statesmen of the nineteenth century who adhered > to > > > the > > > > > traditional view that the governors of any country are the stewards > of > > > the > > > > > interests of that country only, and they are not entitled in any > way to > > > > > interfere in the affairs of other countries….Beginning in the early > > > part of > > > > > the twentieth century, people like Woodrow Wilson began supposing > that > > > we > > > > > had the right and duty to be the world’s keepers, and they have > > > proceeded to > > > > > mess things up around the world ever since.What I try to do in this > > > book [A > > > > > Student’s Guide to International Relations] is to explain…that the > > > world > > > > > really is filled with people who are really different, who really > do > > > think > > > > > differently, and that they work in an international system which > gives > > > them > > > > > full rein, full capacity to be what it is they want, and that makes > it > > > > > impossible for foreigners to conduct their affairs.In other words, > > > > > imperialism has always been something of a losing proposition, > > > especially in > > > > > the modern international system, and our ruling class’s attempt to > > > > > nation-build the world in their own image is doomed to failure and > to > > > > > creating one disaster after another….[Other countries] have, > according > > > to > > > > > our Founding Fathers, every right to be as benighted, backward, and > > > nasty to > > > > > one another as they want. The Declaration of Independence says all > men > > > are > > > > > created equal, all nations have the right to be who they are…. The > > > > > Declaration of Independence claimed no special rights for the > American > > > > > people. It claimed for the American people the rights that the > American > > > > > people recognized in the rest of mankind….Americans, like the rest > of > > > > > mankind, have an inalienable right to self-determination. Now > that’s > > > not > > > > > simply a theoretical statement. It’s also a practical one. Because > it > > > is > > > > > utterly impossible for one people to transfer its own ethos, its > own > > > notion > > > > > of good and evil, its own way of doing things, to another. The > Afghans, > > > the > > > > > Arabs, are who they are; they have grown up in a particular > culture. It > > > is > > > > > what they know, what they love. As John Quincy Adams would have put > it, > > > who > > > > > has appointed us as judges over them?Codevilla also shot off a > > > one-liner > > > > > against the chickenhawk phenomenon; when Church asked him about > neocon > > > Bill > > > > > Kristol, Codevilla replied: "And by the way, I served in the armed > > > forces…. > > > > > Billy didn’t at all." > > > > > > 5) For Exhibits C, D, E, and on through the alphabet, see Bill > > > Kauffman’s > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
