The Party of Death would continue an unjust War

Here it is on one of your commie leftist rant blogs.....notice the date of the report, notice the estimates on just the children under five.



Then I think you should shut up.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

 

BB, why have you ignored what I previously posted? That should be the end of discussion on the OP instead of derailing this thread.

So, here it is again:

The Party of Death (Democratic Party) had a sitting President when the United States got involved in the following wars (justly or unjustly), the facts are:

WW1 - President Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
WW2 - FDR (Democrat)
Korean War - Truman (Democrat)
Viet Nam - Kennedy (Democrat)

If the intent is not to stay on topic, then this thread will be closed.....

 

Mac was talking about people like O-BA-MA--hint--he was not a Democrat.

 

Oh c'mon Major I don't beleive that, but he may have been refering to the same thing that Ike was concerned about and that was an out of control military complex.

 

I will not talk to you anymore, BB. You are not worth the time or effort.

 

You obviously have never read anything about or by MacArthur. He was VERY conservative (moreso than me, even), and despised FDR and Truman, and the entire New Deal. He thought of Eisenhower as too liberal. When Ike won the 1952 Republican nomination, MacArthur made a comment to friends watching the convention on TV, "He will make a good president, he was the best company clerk I ever had." The mililtary industrial complex statement was pure Eisenhower. Ike and Mac were different breeds. In many ways, MAC was a throwback to ancient times. his Father was a Congressional Medal of Honor winner (as was Mac), with extensive combat time (as had Mac), and Army Chief of Staff (as was Mac. Mac was raised on military bases--his earliest memory was of his father and his men on parade at the post where his father was the commander.

He was first in his class, and his first assignment was fighting Filipino Muslim separatists in the early 1900s. The story goes (scolars argue over this incident) that on his first patrol he was accosted by two Moro guerillas who shot his hat off. He calmly drew his pistol and killed both of them. As the story goes, an old Irish Sergeant handed the Lieutenant his hat and said, "Beggin' the lootenant's pardon, but yer life from here on out is pure velvut." MacArthur was a warrior's warrior, through and through, with significant combat time in WW I as well. He only left the Phillipines in 1942 under direct orders from FDR--he was intending to make a last stand and go down fighting. Vain, egotistical, brave to a fault, and brilliant, he was, as one biographer described him, "America's Caesar." His farewell speech at West Point in his '80s was eloquent and moving.

Eisenhower could not have been more different. He never saw combat, even as a general, but he was exactly what was required for the job of SACEUR--he was a sharp-minded clear thinker who understood bureaucratic politics. He was a successful politician as a civilian because he had been an excellent politician as a military officer.

See MAC's farewell address here: http://www.nationalcenter.org/MacArthurFarewell.html

Here is the final portion.


"...Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.


Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men's minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation's war guardians, as its lifeguards from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.


Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be.

These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.


You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the Nation's destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds.

The long gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country.

This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

The shadows are lengthening for me. The twilight is here. My days of old have vanished - tone and tints. They have gone glimmering through the dreams of things that were. Their memory is one of wondrous beauty, watered by tears and coaxed and caressed by the smiles of yesterday. I listen then, but with thirsty ear, for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll.


In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield. But in the evening of my memory I come back to West Point. Always there echoes and re-echoes: Duty, Honor, Country.


Today marks my final roll call with you. But I want you to know that when I cross the river, my last conscious thoughts will be of the Corps, and the Corps, and the Corps.


I bid you farewell.

 

And from what I understand about MacArthur is that he never cared much for politicians of any party. So if you are to conclude that the quote by MacArthur is specifically in reference to the likes of Obama you would be partly wrong as his sentiment would apply to all politicans including John McCain.

 

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
WAR is a racket. It always has been.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And what is this bill?[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.[/FONT]

Smedley D. Butler.

We've been warned about the influence of a military industrial complex more than once. Seems like the only time the so called conservatives in this country worry about the consolidation of power and corruption in government is when a liberal like Obama threatens to become president. Don't get me wrong though, I'll be glad to see them get back in the fight to defend the constitution after their long absence at which time they were waving their flags, spewing out tons of patriotic emotional lava, chasing Emanuel Goldstein around the globe and making excuses while their own "great leader" consolidated power, looted the treasury and shredded the constitution.

 

Do you think we'll have to abandon our troops before, or after we're in Pakistan ?

 

So which part of death, and which unjust war are we talking about ?

 

The American people abandoned the troops long ago Bro. About the same time we let the "international (NWO) community" make the rules and give the orders. Once again...this has nothing to do with democrats vs republicans or lefties vs righties. This is about the United States of America vs the New World Order.

 

Ooops.....

 

I don't think Mac was all that much in love with the idea of Truman's NWO.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/tsgtv/index.html?id=TSGV18-03&link=TSGTVshlk

But the Bushes and Clintons and Obamas and McCains on the other hand all love Truman's NWO. None of them have any qualms at all about sending our military off to enforce the will of the "international (NWO) community". Because to hear them tell it it's our patriotic duty and honor to protect and defend the interests of those who've been using us as canon fodder and cash cows to build their one world government since the end of WW2.

No you don't. Just go get a copy of The Grand Chessboard. It is the program.

 

He was not a lover of any of his current politicians, but he was a Republican, through and through. He is famous for standing up to FDR when MAC was Army Chief of Staff and he thought FDR's budget cuts during the depression were too extreme--he threatened to resign if FDR did not relent, saying "When, in the next war, an ill-prepared and ill-equipped soldier dies with an enemy bayonet in his throat, I want his last curse to be "Roosevelt," not "MacArthur!"

Guys like MacArthur and Patton are not common any more, because the oddballs who win wars are usually weeded out at the Colonel level these days, guys like Hackworth and Boyd, for example. How in the world Petraeus made it through the mill without having his mind corrupted by the five-sided-puzzle-palace, is a mystery to me.

 

I will comply. Closed.