Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.
The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Steve R. Pieczenik, MD, PhD[1] (born December 7, 1943) is an American psychiatrist, former United States Department of State official, author, and publisher.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in 1976 and Co-Author with Tom Clancy of Numerous books. Tom Clancy's famous character "Jack Ryan" is based on Steve Pieczenik.
A lot of you are not going to like what Dr. Pieczenik has to say.
.
I guess BroJoeK is sorta right. It was like Pearl Harbor, but with the roles reversed. In Pearl Harbor, the Japanese minsters were assuring the Roosevelt Administration that they wanted peace, all the while their government was preparing to attack the Fort.
If the President did really intend to do this, -- against the advice or without the sanction of General SCOTT, then his first step has been a gross and unpardonable blunder, one which, if the same policy were to be persisted in, would utterly destroy the public confidence in his ability to conduct a campaign. Our own belief is, that the attempt at reinforcement was a feint, -- that its object was to put upon the rebels the full and clear responsibility of commencing the war, and that no more obstinate defence was contemplated than would suffice to vindicate the honor of the Government.
New York Times, April 17, 1861.
.
.
"The plan succeeded... They attacked Sumter - it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could."
Abraham Lincoln letter to Orville Browning
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln letter to Gustavus Fox
.
.
"In ten days i'll have us at war with these sons of bitches and I'll make it look like their faul!"
You are right. Ft. Sumter *WAS* like Pearl Harbor... sort of.
“In any conflict…..between the government and seceding States, it is very important that the traitors shall be the aggressors, and that they be kept constantly and palpably in the wrong. The first attempt……to furnish supplies or reinforcements will induce aggression by South Carolina, and then the government will stand justified, before the entire country, in repelling that aggression, and retaking the forts.
.
.
“Suppose the expedition successful, we have then a garrison in Ft. Sumter that can defy assault for six months. What is it to do then? Is it to make war by opening its batteries and attempting to demolish the defenses of Charleston? …..I would not initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil of the seceding States.”
Secretary of State Seward
As an aside, I can guarantee you that the horse he rode in on was not the same horse he rode out on. He had had 29 horses shot from under him, and killed or seriously wounded at least thirty enemy soldiers in hand-to-hand combat. And as Shelby Foote put it, "I guess you could say he came out once horse ahead".
I pity the hores. Not Forrest.
Like Fort Sumter conspiracy theories, Pearl Harbor conspiracies are based on false assumptions and "facts", for example as your link claims: that US cryptographers had broken the Japanese naval code.
Broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, yes, naval codes: no, not yet by December 1941.
Further, there's no evidence -- none -- demonstrating that President Roosevelt knew in advance of the attack at Pearl Harbor.
Certainly they expected a Japanese attack somewhere, and that's why they sent out war warnings in November, 1941 to all Pacific commanders, including Panama, Hawaii and MacArthur in the Philippines.
Such warnings were not specific, and no US commander responded effectively.
Even MacArthur after Pearl Harbor was caught off guard by the Japanese attack on the Philippines.
Regardless, no matter how hard you spin it, or deny the facts, you can never claim the US attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor, just as you cannot say Lincoln attacked the Confederacy at Fort Sumter.
Spinning and denying can only get you so far, FRiend, because the facts & truth remain.
My feelings on Forrest are about the same as towards, say, German General Rommel, or Sauk chief Black Hawk -- good leaders who inspired loyalty among their troops and respect from their enemies.
And, in the end, Rommel and Forrest both came to understand their cause was not just lost, but also false.
Black Hawk, Forrest, Rommel:
But Joe, my eternal question: If Forrest side and Rommels had won, how would you feel about them?
As I said before: then the world would be a very different place indeed, and most likely we would not be having this conversation.
IOW: both capably served unjust causes which, had they prevailed, would turn today's world upside down.
Impossible to imagine fully what that might mean now.
Regardless, my point remains: we often honor our past enemies when they are judged both capable and honorable, as was the case, imho, with Forrest.
If the Nazi’s had won and conquered both Europe and Russia then the Cold War would have been against the Third Reich and not the USSR. Pretty much the same thing but the enemy would have better uniforms.
Dr. Pieczenik puts forth ideas that I had not previously considered, and yes, he seems to get it.
Dr. Pieczenik puts forth ideas that I had not previously considered, and yes, he seems to get it.
which ideas?
I forget what he called it, but this idea of killing your own race for the benefit of another race. I had never heard of this before, and it seems contrary to evolution.
I don't really think that is what Lincoln set out to do, I think that is just the unforeseen consequence of what he actually did. I am still pretty convinced that the need for war on the part of the Union was entirely economic.
Lincoln was pretty much a blatant racist. Before getting elected to public office, he was an official of an organization intent on deporting blacks to other countries. He did not want them here in this country.
Also the idea that Lincoln was homosexual. I've heard this alleged by homosexual history revisionists but I never gave it any credence until Dr. Pieczenik said there are known instances of Lincoln sleeping with men.
Where did he get this from? Also, how does he distinguish this from the normal practice of the time of travelers sharing a bed? In those days, it was not at all uncommon for male travelers to sleep in the same bed because separate beds or rooms were generally not available, and so they had no choice if they wanted to get some sleep but there was nothing even remotely sexual about it.
Funny, this is what I was thinking about Grant. That war did turn the world upside down. We are still today dealing with the consequences of that insane war against the people of the South. That war created Fedzilla, and it created corruption in government on a level never before seen in this nation.
It created abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, banned prayer in public schools, redefined Presidential "natural born citizen" eligibility and caused forced busing, among other things. It was a disaster for the Republic and the principles upon which it was founded.
Of course it made the Empire State richer and more powerful.
If I understand you correctly, killing your own race for the benefit of another (as you described it) is not contrary to evolution. You see it every day in the animal world and endless examples in human aggression. It is based on competition, and in some cases in human warfare, on simple anger or revenge.
In Lincoln's situation, he faced the humiliation of a split Union which would destroy his and his party's political future.
But more immediate was the US Treasury's pending collapse. There are many authors who have speculated on his options for financing the government, but borrowing at a reasonable interest rate was going to be impossible.
He also had Seward and Chase making his life miserable and prepared to kill his political power if he proposed a direct tax.
Visiting the anger/revenge motivation, there had been decades of conflict between North and South, with extensive animosity between the regions. As long as commerce and trade functioned along with Congressional equality, so did the country. But animosity creeped into the political arena (Charles Sumner et. al.) and eventually led to politicians using the power of legislation to enact unfair laws. Solution? Secession.
Pollard put it well:
"He had been visited by a number of governors of the Northern States. They offered him money and men; but it was understood that nothing would be done in the way of calling out the State militia and opening special credits, until the Southern revolutionists should be actually in aggression to the authority of the Federal government. Another appeal was still more effectively urged. It was the argument of the partisan.
The report of the intended evacuation of Fort Sumter, and the apparent vacillation of the administration, were producing disaffection in the Black Republican party. This party had shown a considerable loss of strength in the municipal elections in St. Louis, Cincinnati, and other parts of the West they had lost two congressmen in Connecticut and two in Rhode Island.
The low tariff, too, of the Southern Confederacy, brought into competition with the high protective tariff which the Black Republican majority in Congress had adopted, and which was popularly known as “the Morrill Tariff,” was threatening serious disaster to the interests of New England and Pennsylvania, and was indicating the necessity of the repeal of a law which was considered as an indispensable party measure by the most of Mr. Lincoln’s constituents.
No, what you need to grasp is the fact that FDR's A-bombs were originally intended for Nazi Germany, and had the war in Europe gone badly would certainly have been used as intended.
In other words, the issue in WWII was never Nazi victory, only the levels of death & destruction necessary to force their unconditional surrender.
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.