Posted on 10/07/2002 10:38:22 PM PDT by kattracks
Funny. I don't remember ever reading about the Japanese ever loudly declaring their intentions to make war on us if we did not comply with a treaty obligation we had with them.
Iraq, as the losing side in the Gulf War, has a treaty obligation to allow inspections and to not seek weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has violated that treaty obligation and the U.S. has a right to enforce compliance, by force if necessary.
The correct analogy would be the pre-emptive action that the Allies should have taken in 1935 when Hitler renounced the Versailles Treaty and anounced that Nazi Germany was re-arming. A pre-emptive strike in 1935 would have averted 40 millions deaths in the World War II European Theater the 1940's.
Of course, in 1935, Ted Kennedy's father, Joseph Kennedy, soon to be American Ambassador to the Court of St. James, would have disapproved of such a pre-emptive strike against Nazi Germany.
In 1938, the German Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, Herbert von Dirksen, told his Nazi bosses back in Berlin that Kennedy was Nazi "Germany's best friend" in London.
To quote from the above link:
During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James's, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was the victim of "Jewish influence" and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler's regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was "Germany's best friend" in London.)
The Kennedys are very wealthy as a result of the trust funds that Joseph P. Kennedy set up for his children with the money that he made as a robber baron.
Does anyone happen to know how and even if that money is now taxed?
Okay ... Ted has a point. I have the solution. It will destroy Bush's plans for a sneak attack on Iraq if the Iraqis find out we might attack them.
So, Ted ... Why don't you go over and tell Saddam we're thinking of attacking? Do it as soon as possible, please, so we can get on with it.
Heck, even Franklin D. Roosevelt wouldn't recognize the Democratic Party of 2002! The Democratic Party has turned so far left since 1968 that Democratic Party positions of the 1950's would be considered mainline Republican positions of 2002.
IN 1971, WASHINGTON was shocked when a throng of battle-scarred veterans showed up to protest the war in Vietnam. They camped on the Mall, and the Nixon administration quickly obtained a ruling from Chief Justice Warren Burger ordering the veterans to clear out.
They refused. Would they be arrested? It was then that Senator Edward M. Kennedy boldly went to the Mall where the antiwar veterans had pitched their tents and sleeping bags. ''You have served your country well abroad,'' he told them, ''and will serve it even better here in Washington.''
Kennedy's public support of the illegal demonstrators was key in turning the tide of opinion - and then law - in the veterans' favor, and a crucial blow against the war was struck (See ''Home to War'' by Gerald Nicosia).
Ted Kennedy is doing it again. ''I started my career at a time when there was a war that was important to end,'' he said to me as we sat together last Saturday. ''And now - not that I am finishing my career - there is a war that requires us to relearn those lessons of history.''
A few minutes later, in Harvard's Sanders Theater, Kennedy delivered a stirring address at the induction ceremony of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, perhaps the strongest criticism of the move toward war in Iraq yet made by a leading politician, although you would not know that from the way the speech was ignored in the drum-beating media.
Instead of focusing on the details of the prowar resolution that Congress will likely approve this week, Kennedy hom ed in on ''a more fundamental debate that is only just beginning - an all-important debate about how, when, and where in the years ahead our country will use its unsurpassed military might.'' Iraq is simply the first case in point.
Responding to the Bush administration's recently published ''National Security Strategy of the United States,'' Kennedy carefully dissected the radical assumptions that are driving the nation toward war. First, he showed that by equating the two quite distinct purposes of ''prevention'' and ''preemption,'' President Bush is leading America to embrace a course of action it has long condemned in others.
''Traditionally,'' Kennedy said, ''`preemptive' action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack.'' He offered Israel's response to the border-moves of Egypt and Syria in 1967 as an example of justified preemption. By contrast, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, intending to undercut a potential ''capability that could someday become threatening,'' was a ''preventive'' action. ''The coldly premeditated nature of preventive attacks and preventive wars makes them anathema to well-established principles against aggression.''
To Kennedy, preventive war is still anathema, and his denunciation of the Bush embrace of preventive war against Iraq draws its edge from the fact that President John Kennedy, in 1961 and 1962, rejected the argument for preventive war against the Soviet Union, protecting a moral boundary. ''For 175 years,'' Edward Kennedy quotes Robert Kennedy as saying, ''we have not been that kind of country.''
Are we now? The Bush administration's new doctrine, Kennedy said, ''asserts that global realities now legitimize preventive war and make it a strategic necessity. The document openly contemplates preventive attacks against groups or states, even absent the threat of imminent attack I strongly oppose any such extreme doctrine.''
The second feature of Bush's radical new approach that Kennedy lambasted was its assumption that the United States is somehow exempt ''from the rules we expect others to obey.'' Kennedy reiterated an old cliche of public morality - ''Might does not make right!'' - but in the present context, his reference rang with prophetic relevance. The hubris of overwhelming power is corrupting the nation. ''America cannot write its own rules for the modern world. To attempt to do so would be unilateralism run amok.'' Bush is undercutting the war on terrorism, destroying alliances, setting dangerous precedents, and eviscerating America's moral legitimacy.
Again daring to go where few of his colleagues venture, Kennedy defined all of this by its proper name: ''The administration's doctrine is a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept.'' The debate in Congress this week is centered on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but what is really at stake are basic structures of the American idea. The name Kennedy is properly attached to this nation's noblest impulse, and it is fitting that the last of the brothers is raising his voice in its defense.
The afternoon of his speech, the senator and I were sitting in a Somerville cafe. A customer approached our rear-corner table to say, ''Senator, I want to thank you for all you're doing to stand up for us against this rush to war.''
I asked her name, and if I could quote her. ''Lucy Borodkin,'' she said firmly. ''And you certainly can.''
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 10/8/2002.
That says it all. If one needs a translation, that person's too far gone to be helped.
Old Teddy the Swimmer; what a TWIT!
Old Joe wasn't a robber baron, he made his money bootlegging during Prohibition! Then he used some of that money to buy into Hollywood and film production!
TC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.