30-06-2012, 09:26 PM
I don't see a dichotomy.
Jim presents John F. Kennedy having seen what might be.
Charles presents John F. Kennedy answering the rhetorical question, why not?
I suggest, because the exploiters will kill you before your idealism bankrupts them.
JFK envisioned a post-colonial world and came to also envision a post-Cold War world.
Janney claims John Kennedy was an unreconstructed Cold Warrior who entered the incense and paisley chamber of the Magical Mary Tour and the rest of that bad movie.
The advanced human is always evolvingnot the tactical donation-driven evolution of the post-partisan controlling the Joannides file and the Afghan heroin poppies.
In my view the type of evolution John F. Kennedy presented is seen in a number of scenes depicted by Douglass:
The rage over the Bay of Pigs failure, an operation presented as a winner. This thoroughly etched his deep distrust of intelligence and military leaders.
The revulsion over LeMay's scenario of massive attack and invasion in 1962.
His deeper disgust over Lemnitzer's Northwoods proposal.
His despair over the murders of Diem and Nhu.
Idealism met realism.
Robert quoted Bernard, and Edward, both.
John saw things as they might have been and asked why not.
I submit it is because of men like Dulles doing the bidding of those who find it profitable that the status quo be maintained, or the economic battlefield be prepared for its exploitation.
Spirit must gird itself in this arena.
Jim presents John F. Kennedy having seen what might be.
Charles presents John F. Kennedy answering the rhetorical question, why not?
I suggest, because the exploiters will kill you before your idealism bankrupts them.
JFK envisioned a post-colonial world and came to also envision a post-Cold War world.
Janney claims John Kennedy was an unreconstructed Cold Warrior who entered the incense and paisley chamber of the Magical Mary Tour and the rest of that bad movie.
The advanced human is always evolvingnot the tactical donation-driven evolution of the post-partisan controlling the Joannides file and the Afghan heroin poppies.
In my view the type of evolution John F. Kennedy presented is seen in a number of scenes depicted by Douglass:
The rage over the Bay of Pigs failure, an operation presented as a winner. This thoroughly etched his deep distrust of intelligence and military leaders.
The revulsion over LeMay's scenario of massive attack and invasion in 1962.
His deeper disgust over Lemnitzer's Northwoods proposal.
His despair over the murders of Diem and Nhu.
Idealism met realism.
Robert quoted Bernard, and Edward, both.
John saw things as they might have been and asked why not.
I submit it is because of men like Dulles doing the bidding of those who find it profitable that the status quo be maintained, or the economic battlefield be prepared for its exploitation.
Spirit must gird itself in this arena.