23-Nov-13 World View -- JFK: We shall pay any price

[John]

23-Nov-13 World View -- JFK: We shall pay any price, bear any burden for the success of liberty

Afghanistan security agreement may be close to collapse

** 23-Nov-13 World View -- JFK: We shall pay any price, bear any burden for the success of liberty
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e131123




Contents:
Afghanistan security agreement may be close to collapse
JFK: We shall pay any price, bear any burden for the success of liberty


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai,
John Kerry, Loya Jirga,
John F. Kennedy

[gerald]

Why was JFK assassinated on November 22, 1963?
An alternative explanation?

About 5 months earlier ---

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, <executiveorder11110.htm>Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.
(apparently, in essence, money would be created by the US treasury , not the Federal Reserve, a private bank,)

http://www.rense.com/general76/jfkvs.htm

apparently the Federal Reserve was created on November 22, 1910 http://sufiy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/joh ... truth.html#

interesting

[shoshin]

John, JFK's speech was truly moving, and you and I were nearly the same age when we heard it (just out of college), and susceptible to that form of beautifully enunciated principles. But, in retrospect, it now sounds to me like a "let's be the World's policeman, and jump on the military-industrial complex bandwagon" screed. I recall a speech by another President/Soldier (Eisenhower), who also saw the miseries of WAR (the same one JFK fought in) and his view, I think, was different, but maybe I'm missing something.

Here's a link...

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/ ... ndust.html

and I'll paste in this segment:
"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."

and..."This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Of course, Truman had already set the wheels in motion...

[John]

Dear David,

The thing that caught my eye in the text that you pasted was the
phrase "development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in
agriculture." I assume that this is a slam at the Rockefeller
Foundation's "Green Revolution" program, which actually was quite
successful, for a couple of decades anyway, in India.

It looks like Eisenhower was making a very general statement that
government can't do everything - whether it's in foreign policy using
the military, or in science or in other programs. Kennedy would later
contradict Eisenhower with his inaugural address: "The energy, the
faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our
country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly
light the world."

In the 1960s, a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats,
believed that the government could accomplish almost anything.
Eisenhower was denying that view, but Kennedy was supporting it.

In the years that followed, Eisenhower was proven to be right. The
Vietnam War showed that government would not "truly light the world,"
and Nixon's wage-price controls showed that government couldn't even
control the economy.

John

[NoOneImportant]

A number of years ago while reflecting on this same issue I came to the following conclusion - it reflects my current thinking: there is no limit to the string of worthy goals, ideals, and actions that an unrestrained government might pursue; there is, however, a finite limit to your ability to pay for them.

I heard both speeches: Kennedy's was a speech of inspiration, an inspiration that led to the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, and resulted in a focus and dedication that gave us the moon landing. Eisenhower's was a speech of warning, a speech that when disregarded led to the morass that became Vietnam. A war where the daily dying of combatants, and innocents was attempted to be made tolerable. It was a morass made possible by an absence of focus, national dedication, and national commitment. War is a deadly pursuit, it can't be made tolerable - if the nation's populace isn't willing to risk all, then ask no soldier to die. The moon landing was successful, as there was no one shooting at the astronauts. When three astronauts were killed in an on-pad fire, it was a national tragedy. What of the private soldiers killed that same day in Vietnam - but for their families, completely unknown.

[gerald]

A number of years ago while reflecting on this same issue I came to the following conclusion - it reflects my current thinking: there is no limit to the string of worthy goals, ideals, and actions that an unrestrained government might pursue; there is, however, a finite limit to your ability to pay for them.

I heard both speeches: Kennedy's was a speech of inspiration, an inspiration that led to the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, and resulted in a focus and dedication that gave us the moon landing. Eisenhower's was a speech of warning, a speech that when disregarded led to the morass that became Vietnam. A war where the daily dying of combatants, and innocents was attempted to be made tolerable. It was a morass made possible by an absence of focus, national dedication, and national commitment. War is a deadly pursuit, it can't be made tolerable - if the nation's populace isn't willing to risk all, then ask no soldier to die. The moon landing was successful, as there was no one shooting at the astronauts. When three astronauts were killed in an on-pad fire, it was a national tragedy. What of the private soldiers killed that same day in Vietnam - but for their families, completely unknown.

I agree

However, a further question needs to be asked about "worthy goals". What is the definition of a worthy goal, who is that definition made by, and does the goal violate known natural laws?

[NoOneImportant]

Agreed - who gets to decide?

[gerald]

Agreed - who gets to decide?

That is the question of the ages, --- Who gets to decide?
Apparently, based upon historical events, NOT the "all knowing" elite.