← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · starr
Thread ID: 16688 | Posts: 48 | Started: 2005-02-10
2005-02-10 03:31 | User Profile
english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]**[size=2][QUOTE] **
[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=2]Iranian President Muhammad al-Khatami has insisted that Tehran would not drop its nuclear program.[/size]**[/font]
In a meeting with foreign diplomats on Wednesday, al-Khatami also warned that if Iran's legitimate demand for gaining access to peaceful nuclear technology was not met by the European Union, then Iran would no longer be obliged to continue negotiations.
"No government, neither mine nor any other, has the right to deprive the nation on its path to technology, including the national nuclear technology," al-Khatami said.
"[There is] no way we would ignore the nation's legitimate will for peaceful nuclear technology and instead give in to illegitimate demands from outside."
Psychological war
Al-Khatami labeled the US threats to Iran on the nuclear-issue as a psychological war, but said "the situation has become more dangerous in this state than before".
"But if the threat rhetoric remained, then also Iran would switch towards a different approach and that would be to no country's benefit," he said.
While reiterating that Iran was not after producing nuclear weapons, al-Khatami said that he was even willing to give all relevant guarantees in this regard.
"We are not after nuclear weapons, not after tensions, not after wars, but we are also not ready to be the scapegoat of those powers whose policies have failed," he said, referring to the United States policies in Iraq.
"We have suspended uranium enrichment voluntarily and for showing our goodwill towards the global society, but we never agreed for anything permanent," al-Khatami said
[/QUOTE] [/size]**[/font]
2005-02-10 03:39 | User Profile
I have no problem with Iran getting nukes. In fact, I hope they get them because that will diminish the arrogance of the Israelis. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians don't scare me any more than the nukes that are already in the hands of the Pakistanis, the Russians, or anyone else.
2005-02-10 08:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I have no problem with Iran getting nukes. In fact, I hope they get them because that will diminish the arrogance of the Israelis. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians don't scare me any more than the nukes that are already in the hands of the Pakistanis, the Russians, or anyone else.[/QUOTE] That is my position as well. In fact... I believe the situation in the Middle East would stabilize dramatically if Iran had nuclear weapons.
We do not want Israel dominating the Middle East.
:tank:
2005-02-10 11:35 | User Profile
I think the Iranians have learned from the North Koreans that belligerence is the best way to respond to American threats. I heard that the Iranian President said that any invasion would have 'massive consequences' and that any invading force would 'burn in hell.' Iran is not backing down.
2005-02-10 12:36 | User Profile
I think the Israelis have probably made some sort of long-term strategic calculation that Iranian nukes will be the beginning of the end of their national survival. They'll pull out ALL the stops to prevent it from happening. I'm not worried about Iran getting nukes, but I am worried about the war that will break out before that is allowed to happen.
2005-02-10 13:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]I think the Israelis have probably made some sort of long-term strategic calculation that Iranian nukes will be the beginning of the end of their national survival. They'll pull out ALL the stops to prevent it from happening. I'm not worried about Iran getting nukes, but I am worried about the war that will break out before that is allowed to happen.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
I don't see how the Israelis could allow the Mullahs to get the bomb.
I would disagree to the extent that I don't think that a nuclear Iran would attack Israel. Mutually assured destruction kept the peace between the US and the USSR for over forty years, and it's done a pretty good job of chastening Indian and Pakistani mutual loathing, at least thus far. I see no reason the same calculus shouldn't apply to the Iranians and Israelis.
The reason a nuclear Iran is so unacceptable for the Yahoodis is, in my opinion, that it would reduce Israel's status in the region and the world to the relative insignificant backwater it really is. Israel really is, as the French foreign minister put it not so long ago, a "shitty little country." It's not in the same league as great nations like Germany, France, United Kingdom, Russia, China, the United States and so on. Yet there they are occupying a vastly disproportionate share of the world's attention.
But with Iran as a co-equal, all of that will change. The Yahoodis will be forced to pipe down a bit. Certainly they'll have to surrender their dreams of an Eretz Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. They'll be taken down several notches.
And that's something they won't allow without a major fight.
At least, I don't think they will.
I'd also add that Iran seems to be a rather stable place. They're rather united in religion, if not ethnicity (big Kurdish and Azeri populations, but I think the Azeris are mostly Shias). People there want change, but I don't think they're willing yet to gun down Mullahs in the street. That's not the case in Pakistan, which is a crazy quilt of warring Muslim tribes ruled by a rather secular (and therefore often despised) military apparatus. It's also wracked by wars on its borders, including Kashmir and Afghanistan. It's a very unstable place, and it already has lots of nukes and advanced missles to deliver them with. Pakistan could cause a major mess.
Pakistan and North Korea present far greater dangers than Iran and Syria, IMHO.
2005-02-10 14:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE]But with Iran as a co-equal, all of that will change. The Yahoodis will be forced to pipe down a bit. Certainly they'll have to surrender their dreams of an Eretz Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. They'll be taken down several notches.
And that's something they won't allow without a major fight.[/QUOTE]
You bet they'd fight. Right down to the last American 18-year-old.
2005-02-10 14:28 | User Profile
I'm not too worried about the Iranians. Yes they're Muslims, but they're pretty smart and rational Muslims so they're unlikely to do anything dumb and crazy
But if Arabs get hold of nukes, all bets are off. It will be like a toddler with a shotgun. These people are completely foolish and irresponsible. Not good.
2005-02-10 16:45 | User Profile
[quote=il ragno]You bet they'd fight. Right down to the last American 18-year-old.
Nuh-uh. Down to the last 16-year-old American girl. What's a few shiksas to Kristol & Krew?
2005-02-10 17:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE] "We are not after nuclear weapons, not after tensions, not after wars, but we are also not ready to be the scapegoat of those powers whose policies have failed," he (al-Khatami) said, referring to the United States policies in Iraq.[/QUOTE] I hear more common sense from Islamic officials than I do from American officials. Saddam Hussein said the same thing before the US invaded Iraq. I wish my country's officials had real life common sense, I really do.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I'd also add that Iran seems to be a rather stable place. They're rather united in religion, if not ethnicity (big Kurdish and Azeri populations, but I think the Azeris are mostly Shias). People there want change, but I don't think they're willing yet to gun down Mullahs in the street.[/QUOTE] Good point Walter. I'd go further to say that the West, especially the US, has failed miserably in understanding that maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of ordinary Muslims, men and women, like the arragement of their lives under Islamic teachings. I don't think many Muslims sit around all day thinking that if they can only have malls, jeans, dirty movies, race-mixing, drugs, sexual freedom, feminism, and abortion--that that will make them happy and free. But that's what America says they need and will be bombed into getting those "freedoms". What insanity!
What the Zionist/American coalition hates and loathes about Muslim countries is that they hold and [U]live by[/U] old fashioned conservative religious values. It's too "medieval" to have submissive women, it's too "barbaric" to execute murderers, it's too "backwards" for not accepting materialistic values and falling in line with the New World Order.
You know what I mean?
2005-02-10 17:29 | User Profile
Don't worry guys, with N. Korea now saying that they "do have" nukes there is no need for Iran to have the means to make them because I know that they will be able to get them from N. Korea.
I should be scare about any Arab nation getting nukes but I am not, the reason that I am saying this is that I know that the Zionist in Palestine sooner or later would use their own nukes on someone who does not have nukes and this way everyone will have a big stick.
I am more scare of the Zionits in Palestine having nukes than Arabs having the same.
2005-02-10 19:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
But with Iran as a co-equal, all of that will change. The Yahoodis will be forced to pipe down a bit. Certainly they'll have to surrender their dreams of an Eretz Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. They'll be taken down several notches.
[/QUOTE]You have the right. And that is what it basically comes down to. The Iranians are NOT going to lanch any type of preemptive nuclear strike against Israel or anybody else. That would be incredibly stupid. And our government and their Zionist "handlers" know this.
[QUOTE] I hear more common sense from Islamic officials than I do from American officials. Saddam Hussein said the same thing before the US invaded Iraq. I wish my country's officials had real life common sense, I really do.
[/QUOTE] Yeah, I would agree. It is pretty scary to hear more common sense coming from our so-called enemies then our government officials. Who sounds more like the real "terrorists" here?
2005-02-10 22:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Yet there they are occupying a vastly disproportionate share of the world's attention.[/QUOTE]
Walter,
Hasn't that always been the case with them, particulary in the last half of the 20th century? For that matter, causing most of the 20th century's problems as well?
2005-02-11 02:28 | User Profile
I sentence you all to 6 months of wearing a skull cap!
2005-02-11 06:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]You bet they'd fight. Right down to the last American 18-year-old.[/QUOTE]
Bingo.
2005-02-11 17:30 | User Profile
The reason we don't tend to care if Iran goes nuclear is because we are on the other side of the world. Think how you would feel if it were Cuba, or any of our neighboring Turd Worlders, that wanted to build the bomb? The Iranians could end up at some point lobbing their device into the Russian white community. Nope. No nukes for non-whites.
2005-02-11 17:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]The reason we don't tend to care if Iran goes nuclear is because we are on the other side of the world. Think how you would feel if it were Cuba, or any of our neighboring Turd Worlders, that wanted to build the bomb? The Iranians could end up at some point lobbing their device into the Russian white community. Nope. No nukes for non-whites.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The doomsday scenarios are utlimately endless and that's why a strict policy of armed neutral isolationism is the only sane approach. Instead of never-ending crusades around the globe seeking out every possible danger to our homeland, we should invest our full resources in fool-proof border control and some kind of missle-defense system. Then we need not worry about what Cuba or Venezuela does or doesn't do.
2005-02-11 17:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]The Iranians could end up at some point lobbing their device into the Russian white community. Nope. No nukes for non-whites.[/QUOTE] I appreciate the sentiment, but aren't Iranians Caucasians?
2005-02-11 17:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I appreciate the sentiment, but aren't Iranians Caucasians?[/QUOTE]
Caucasians are a large group of people including Arabs, Jews, and Indians but they are not white, or rather I should say "White".
2005-02-11 17:55 | User Profile
Yes, they Caucasians as are many Arabs, Jews, and Indians. They are not considered part of the greater White family, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, they are not a part of the West.
2005-02-11 17:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Anyway, they are not a part of the West.[/QUOTE] That is most certainly true.
2005-02-11 18:25 | User Profile
Iranians and Russians have a very working relationship these days, and frankly I believe that for all the neocon scaremongering, Iranians are losing their religious zeal for Islamic revolution, just like Soviet Union did not really believe anymore in international communist triumph in the 1970s and 1980s.
Petr
2005-02-11 18:34 | User Profile
We're talking nukes here, Petr. Why support nukes in any non-Western hands?
2005-02-11 18:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I appreciate the sentiment, but aren't Iranians Caucasians?[/QUOTE]
They speak an Aryan language and are genetically close to Europeans. They played a significant role in European history, but as antagonists to the Greeks.
They're Muslims, though, and that excludes them from the West automatically and completely.
The Faith is Christendom, Christendom is the Faith.
2005-02-11 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]We're talking nukes here, Petr. Why support nukes in any non-Western hands?[/QUOTE]
I don't think the question is whether or not one supports non-Western nations possessing nuclear weaponry, but rather as an American, or Westerner if you will, what lengths you are willing to go to prevent it from happening.
Personally, I think every nation has the right of self-determination. True defense begins at home.
2005-02-11 19:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I don't think the question is whether or not one supports non-Western nations possessing nuclear weaponry, but rather as an American, or Westerner if you will, what lengths you are willing to go to prevent it from happening.
Personally, I think every nation has the right of self-determination. True defense begins at home.[/QUOTE]
YOu support Cuba having nuclear weapons? How about Mexico? One keeps the most advanced weaponry out of the hands of one's antagonists as long as possible. Were the ancient Greeks to give their enemies Greek Fire because of notions of self-determination? NO. Real politic trumps self-determination.
2005-02-11 19:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]YOu support Cuba having nuclear weapons? How about Mexico? One keeps the most advanced weaponry out of the hands of one's antagonists as long as possible. Were the ancient Greeks to give their enemies Greek Fire because of notions of self-determination? NO. Real politic trumps self-determination.[/QUOTE]
That's not what I said, bardamu. The question is how far you are willing to go if said nations started seriously pursuing a nuclear weapons program? Are you willing to go permanently occupy that country, in order to fully make sure it doesn't happen? Are we the global policeman and warden? I say no, we're not, or at least shouldn't be. Are there diplomatic and practical steps we can take to prevent such things? Sure, export controls and the like, but surely you see the principle involved here. Our blood and treasure is much better spent by focusing almost exclusively on sealing up our borders, deporting those who are not like us and developing a missle-defense system.
2005-02-11 19:16 | User Profile
I would make a few points about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, if I may. 1. The foreign policy of the US is likely a large part of the reason Iran is hell-bent on acquiring the bomb. After viewing our disparate treatment of Serbia and Iraq, on the one hand, and of North Korea on the other, the lesson learned by the nations of the world was -- 'Get nukes before you piss off America.' 2. I would certainly not want Cuba or Mexico to have nukes. In fact, I would rather that no further countries would acquire them. We should certainly not help any other countries acquire nukes, but should we enter into wars around the globe, willy-nilly, whenever any country starts a nuclear program? It seems that we are instigating a certain and present war to prevent the uncertain possibility of a future war. 3. In that region of the world, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, India, and China already all have nukes. I fail to see how Iran's acquisition would be particularly destabilizing. If anything, it would keep Israel in line.
2005-02-11 19:16 | User Profile
Excuse me, TD. I gathered you were saying all nations have a right to nuclear weaponry as a form of self-determination. Occupying countries is a fool's errand, unless that is you are in the arms industry, then it is a mountain of gold. I think it is possible to "convince" governments, using the carrot and the stick, to leave off arming themselves nuclear, should that fail, then airstrikes against their industry is called for.
2005-02-11 19:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Excuse me, TD. I gathered you were saying all nations have a right to nuclear weaponry as a form of self-determination.
No problem, bardamu. For principle's sake, please explain to me why you don't think they do.
I think it is possible to "convince" governments, using the carrot and the stick, to leave off arming themselves nuclear...
I agree.
...should that fail, then airstrikes against their industry is called for.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Barring them directly threatening us, like we are currently doing to others in the Middle East, what right do we have to tell other nations how to run their own countries? We shouldn't be sticking our nose in other people's business, unless of course they start it. That's the exact reason we're in the mess we're in right now.
2005-02-11 20:17 | User Profile
Prior to 1990, I might've agreed with Bardamu.
Since 1990, though, the most preeminent reason for anyone to posess nukes is to ward [I]us [/I] off from invasion/occupation, or just a good old-fahioned bombing campaign meant to make us feel better about our virtuousness, a la the former Yugoslavia.
2005-02-11 22:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Personally, I think every nation has the right of self-determination. True defense begins at home.[/QUOTE] I would agree. Who the hell are we to tell these other nations what they can and cannot have for their own defense? If a terrorist nation like Israel, being a relatively close neighbor of Iran, can have nukes, why not the Iranians? I also have to say I agree with what the North Korean commie nut said recently about arming themselves partially in preparation for defense against an attack from the United states. When our president starts talking about an "axis of evil" as he did, and then we attack and occupy, one of the three nations mentioned in that speech, what kind of repercussions do people think something like that is going to have?
2005-02-11 22:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]No problem, bardamu. For principle's sake, please explain to me why you don't think they do.
[/QUOTE]
Nukes being what they are it makes sense to keep them from proliferating, especially in the direction of traditional enemies. Each new country that arms itself adds to the inertia that will one day have all countries thinking they must have nukes. What will be the result of this? There should be a moratorium on all nuclear weapons, and a complete embargo on their proliferation.
2005-02-11 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr] Who the hell are we to tell these other nations what they can and cannot have for their own defense?[/QUOTE]
Are we allowed to have an opinion on the weapons other nations might have for their own [I]offense[/I]?
The [I]defense[/I] designation is double-speak. For instance, do you really think the IDF is a "defensive" organization?
2005-02-11 22:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]I would agree. Who the hell are we to tell these other nations what they can and cannot have for their own defense? If a terrorist nation like Israel, being a relatively close neighbor of Iran, can have nukes, why not the Iranians? I also have to say I agree with what the North Korean commie nut said recently about arming themselves partially in preparation for defense against an attack from the United states. When our president starts talking about an "axis of evil" as he did, and then we attack and occupy, one of the three nations mentioned in that speech, what kind of repercussions do people think something like that is going to have?[/QUOTE]
The concept of self defense includes the notion of a justifiable preemptive strike.
If I were a Russian I sure and hell wouldn't want Shamil Basayev to get a nuke. In fact, I'd want my government to stop at nothing to prevent that from happening.
2005-02-11 22:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Are we allowed to have an opinion on the weapons other nations might have for their own offense?
[/QUOTE]Having an opinion? That is quite a bit different then attempting to police the world and offer an ultimatum(sp), like we are doing with Iran at this time. This is the kind of thing that forces people to act in their own best interests. And then when they do act, they are "evil terrorists". And we wonder why we are hated by so many nations in the world.
2005-02-11 22:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The concept of self defense includes the notion of a justifiable preemptive strike.
As we are currently learning Walter, 'justifiable' is a very broadly defined term subject to the usual jewish, lawyerly parsing. In other words, in the real world that concept will mean anything an agressor nation wants it to mean.
If I were a Russian I sure and hell wouldn't want Shamil Basayev to get a nuke. In fact, I'd want my government to stop at nothing to prevent that from happening.[/QUOTE]
Sure you would, who wouldn't? So you commit lives and big dollars to ransack his homeland, occupy his country with martial law and maybe you do one day catch him. As soon as he's behind bars or strung up, well guess what? Here comes Basayev, Jr. following in his daddy's footsteps along with a couple, three or more of his relatives in tow. It'll never end. Eventually you'll find your country with the great majority of it's able bodied men scattered abroad in all kinds of countries, hemorrhaging precious blood and treasure policing the globe and the entire world resentful and pissed off at you.
I say George Washington's policy is the correct and honorable one. Armed to the teeth neutrality with completely secure borders. Take all that money used to fight in foreign lands and invest it in a 'Star Wars' missle defense system and state of the art border monitoring. Peaceful trade with all nations that are willing and no entangling alliances with anyone.
2005-02-11 23:15 | User Profile
[quote=TexasDissident]I say George Washington's policy is the correct and honorable one. Armed to the teeth neutrality with completely secure borders. Take all that money used to fight in foreign lands and invest it in a 'Star Wars' missle defense system and state of the art border monitoring. Peaceful trade with all nations that are willing and no entangling alliances with anyone.
Ah, Tex, yer not thinking like a good, old-fashioned war profiteer. There's some serious bux to be made in them there "entanglaments" donchaknow? I mean, every time a hummvee gets turned inside out by an RPG or IED, AM General makes about $50K. If'n you don't like it, then you're an anti-capitalist commie, sez Hannity. :drool: You're talking like someone who values the lives of his fellow countrymen more than the bottom line on the quarterly report. Say, you sound like you're coming dangerously close to not being with "us" so does that mean you're with the terrurists? :osama:
For the record, I agree with you...
2005-02-11 23:20 | User Profile
As has been pointed out, it is [I]Russia[/I] that is supplying Iran with nuclear technology.
And this assistance is hardly [URL=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=russia+iran+nuclear&btnG=Google+Search&meta=]covert[/URL]
Why are the Russians doing this?
2005-02-12 00:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mmartins]As has been pointed out, it is [I]Russia[/I] that is supplying Iran with nuclear technology.
And this assistance is hardly [URL=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=russia+iran+nuclear&btnG=Google+Search&meta=]covert[/URL]
Why are the Russians doing this?[/QUOTE]
If the US are "nice" in helping the state of Israel they why can't the Russians be also "nice" in helping Iran?
What is good for one is also good for the other one.
2005-02-12 00:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Having an opinion? That is quite a bit different then attempting to police the world and offer an ultimatum(sp), like we are doing with Iran at this time. This is the kind of thing that forces people to act in their own best interests. And then when they do act, they are "evil terrorists". And we wonder why we are hated by so many nations in the world.[/QUOTE]
Do you support Mexico and Cuba having the nuclear right to "self defense"?
2005-02-12 00:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Do you support Mexico and Cuba having the nuclear right to "self defense"?[/QUOTE]
The peace loving people of Cuba have no need or reason in having nuclear weapons, all they want is to be left alone.
If Cuba really wanted to have nukes all they had to do was to keep the ones that Russia had in Cuba in 1962 and like Korea tell the US to go to hell and to "bring it on".
2005-02-12 06:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]... I say George Washington's policy is the correct and honorable one. Armed to the teeth neutrality with completely secure borders. Take all that money used to fight in foreign lands and invest it in a 'Star Wars' missle defense system and state of the art border monitoring. Peaceful trade with all nations that are willing and no entangling alliances with anyone. [/QUOTE] Well said Brother ! :thumbsup:
Such a simple solution. I wonder if we'll ever be able to implement it? :gunsmilie
2005-02-12 15:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]The peace loving people of Cuba have no need or reason in having nuclear weapons, all they want is to be left alone.
If Cuba really wanted to have nukes all they had to do was to keep the ones that Russia had in Cuba in 1962 and like Korea tell the US to go to hell and to "bring it on".[/QUOTE]
If all they want is to be left alone, Ponce, why did half of them move to Miami?
2005-02-12 16:21 | User Profile
Tex et al:
Agree on George Washington, but, frankly, I'd settle for following Dwight Eisenhower's counsel as stated in his cautionary final speech to the Nation as President. (Note: though the first part of the following is heavy on the standard political boilerplate, overall this text stands in stark contrast to the sheer moron-friendly gobbledygook we've gotten since whenever a President stands before a podium).
[FONT=Tahoma][QUOTE]My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
[B]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. [/B] Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
[B]Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
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 military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. [/B]
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. [B]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.[/B]
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
[B]Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite. [/B]
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. [B]As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. [/B] We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. [B]Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. [/B] As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals. [/QUOTE] [/FONT]
PS: you'll forgive my lapse into sentimentality if I note, with pride and sadness, that this used to be a pretty good goddamned place to live back in those days of "repression".
2005-02-12 16:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]If all they want is to be left alone, Ponce, why did half of them move to Miami?[/QUOTE]
In the first year (1959) the ones who went to Miami were the war criminals and those who had something to do with the dictator of Batista, they knew that they were going to "the wall".
From 1960 to 1970 the ones to run to Miamia were the rich and upper middle class that dind't wanted to loose their money to the revolution and whose businesses were confiscated by Castro.
After that you had the criminal and mixed with them those who wanted a better way of life in the USA.
In case you wonder about me, I been going back and forward between Cuba and the US ever sinse I was born, my mother was an American.
PS: If they could leave Cuba you would have at this time about 80% of the island in Miami and after what I saw in Cuba I would not blame them.
2005-02-12 16:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce] PS: If they could leave Cuba you would have at this time about 80% of the island in Miami and after what I saw in Cuba I would not blame them.[/QUOTE]
Then you can understand why we wouldn't want Cuba armed with nuclear bombs?
2005-02-12 21:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] [Dwight Eisenhower] ... Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. ... We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...[/QUOTE] Thank you il ragno... for the reminder.
:thumbsup: