So the people trying to revive the Cold War ultimately are plugged into the MIC, right?

[reformist2]

More conflict means more dollars for the Pentagon. More weapons, more troops! And that means more jobs - and a better economy!

And for all these talking heads, it means more dollars for their "think tanks," where they can sit on their brains and think big thoughts about this New American Century.

That's what I figured, anyway, when I remembered to follow the money.

[KansDem]

1. It's why JFK was assassinated...

Kennedy continued to resist all attempts to persuade him to send troops to Vietnam. His policy was reinforced by the Bay of Pigs operation. Kennedy told his assistant secretary of state, Roger Hilsman: “The Bay of Pigs has taught me a number of things. One is not to trust generals or the CIA, and the second is that if the American people do not want to use American troops to remove a Communist regime 90 miles away from our coast, how can I ask them to use troops to remove a Communist regime 9,000 miles away? (12)

In April, 1962, Kennedy told McGeorge Bundy to “seize upon any favourable moment to reduce our involvement” in Vietnam. (13) In September, 1963, Robert Kennedy expressed similar views at a meeting of the National Security Council: “The first question was whether a Communist takeover could be successfully resisted with any government. If it could not, now was the time to get out of Vietnam entirely, rather than waiting.” (14)

The decision by Kennedy to withdraw from Vietnam was confirmed by John McCone, the director of the CIA: “When Kennedy took office you will recall that he won the election because he claimed that the Eisenhower administration had been weak on communism and weak in the treatment of Castro and so forth. So the first thing Kennedy did was to send a couple of men to Vietnam to survey the situation. They came back with the recommendation that the military assistance group be increased from 800 to 25,000. That was the start of our involvement. Kennedy, I believe, realized he'd made a mistake because 25,000 US military in a country such as South Vietnam means that the responsibility for the war flows to (the US military) and out of the hands of the South Vietnamese. So Kennedy, in the weeks prior to his death, realized that we had gone overboard and actually was in the process of withdrawing when he was killed and Johnson took over.” (15)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6274

And we were there for another 12 years...

[el_bryanto]

7. It's one theory, certainly. Not necessarily the correct one. nt

[Octafish]

13. JFK vs the War Party

''The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.'' -- President John F. Kennedy

Transcript.

Vs. the War Party POV:

"Money trumps peace." -- pretzeldent George W Bush

Words uttered Feb. 14, 2007 at a press conference in which not a single member of the callow, cowed and corrupt press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up.

While Corporate McPravda ignored the remark and accompanying smirk for the last seven years, I remember Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention.

Details for those interested in how JFK represented DEMOCRATIC change in foreign policy: James DiEugenio.

Details on JFK and Vietnam and JFK thwarting CIA-Pentagon plans for nuclear war.

Sorry about all the links. They're chock full of more links -- the stories and history not found in the influential Texas school books perfect for standardized testing and all the news on democracy and justice missed by Corporate McPravda.

[cprise]

14. There were a number of reasons they wanted to be rid of Kennedy

He cut across the grain of their old boys club.

[TBF]

2. Timeline of US Military OPS -

honestly, this country does little else:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

[reformist2]

8. With a covert ops budget in the billions of dollars, they can't help but make mischief.

[Kablooie]

3. I'm looking forward to Duck and Cover atomic bomb defense again.

Just like reliving my childhood.
How delightful.

[Javaman]

5. Good old Bert the Turtle...

[The Wizard]

4. How much is the defense cartel

sending to secret Cayman Islands accounts so as to continue funding permanent war? Lots of unclean hands in Washington.

[valerief]

15. The war chest is their play money. nt

[heaven05]

6. yep, no doubt

+1000

[L0oniX]

9. The business of killing will kill to increase business. It's just business.

[Adrahil]

10. So, the MIC made Russia seize Ukraine?

Got it.

[reformist2]

11. Here's what you didn't get - our agencies & "pro-democracy" groups instigated it in the first place

[Adrahil]

12. Horsecrap.

Ukraine's internal matters are not an excuse for Russia to invade. Period.

And Yanukovich, by abandoning the course most favored by Ukrainians and embracing Russia, instigated the mass protests, and HIS decision to order the police to shoot protesters was NOT some CIA plot. I should point out that even members of his own party voted to toss is corrupt, sorry butt out.

Yeah, I get it. It's all America's fault. Change the record.

[cprise]

18. US was involved in plotting regime change while Yanukovych was in office

Its clear from the Nuland-Pyatt phone call the US was involved in the effort to replace the sitting president of Ukraine.

And they were violent rioters and arsonists who had been firebombing the police since at least the beginning of December.

During the London Riots the western media didn't call them "protesters".

[penultimate]

20. I disagree that the call makes that clear

The call you're speaking of makes it clear that they were discussing the events unfolding there and were looking for was to influence in a direction they wanted it to go. There was no mention of scope, type of action or the success of any actions. So I don't see how anyone could say it's clear based on that conversation. Unless I missed something, in which case I'd love to see it. Otherwise it seems like normal operations of diplomats from any country.

[cprise]

21. No, it is clear they were in negotiations with the opposition before the coup

and were looking for was to influence in a direction they wanted it to go.

That's just a euphemism for plotting a coup. As diplomats they had absolutely no business trying to influence who was going to rule that country, most especially when an elected leader was still in power.

Its astounding how people will do mental backflips to make connivers look innocent. Try to make it sound like they were attending a PTA meeting all you want. It doesn't change the facts on the ground that they were interfering with the democratic governing process of a foreign country by grooming a replacement and holding out billions of dollars as a prize.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Yeah, those pro-democracy agitators should find no succor at democraticunderground.com

[yurbud]

17. it's not just that: if we break Russia, "our" oil companies can get a lock on the second biggest oil

and gas region in the world, and the routes to pipe it out.

I say "our" because any benefit to the average American will be purely accidental.

[starroute]

19. Not all of them -- there's a mixture of motivations

When you look at the lists of people who appear at the warhawks' conferences and other gathering holes, there are several types:

- Neocons promoting the interests of Israel

- Retired military officers and others shilling for the military-industrial complex

- Geostrategists (like the folks associated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies) who are operating on a theory that control of the Middle East and Central Asia is the key to global dominance. (There are people in Russia who believe the same thing, only they're right there and we aren't.)

- Corporate interests who don't have any fancy theories but just want to make sure the world remains safe for Western economic interests and prefer either corrupt local governments or friendly neo-fascists to anything with a whiff of socialism.

It's the fact that so many different interests converge on this one point that makes it a continuing source of trouble. I'm more than half convinced that Obama is pushing domestic energy production because he sees it as a way of keeping the US out of more overseas entanglements. But of course that can't end well either.