These are statements made by JFK
"It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.
John F. Kennedy "
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy "
so my question is.....when and why did the democrats become such...cowards?
2007-02-19 12:01:43 · 27 answers · asked by Bill 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We Democrats didn't change, the world did.
Back when JFK said those words, it was easy to support the idea. Wars were big news, and at their conclusion there were huge parades, and you could kiss girls on the street without getting slapped.
But now it's just so hard. Maybe we'd support the Iraq war more if it had more of the traditional pomp and ceremony, something that could really make us all feel good. When I go to my anti Global Warming rallies, we get to feel we've done something great, and we all high-five one another. But this Iraq was is just so tedious. It's just work, work, work. Can't they do something to make it more spectator friendly?
We're not cowards. We're just a bit mired in ambivalence because this Iraq war does not give us that fuzzy, warm feeling we get from other campaigns we get involved in.
2007-02-19 12:17:42 · answer #1 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Democrats are not cowards. Your question was answered by the very man you quoted, John F. Kennedy.
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Our being in Iraq has no bearing on our survival & the success of liberty. Democrats are only following his words, ones that you approve of & quote.
2007-02-19 12:14:34 · answer #2 · answered by geegee 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans, are as they used to be. Bill Maher made a statement some time ago that the Libertarian Party is what used to be the Republicans.
JFK was faced with Russia's giving weapons of mass destruction to Cuba--which was so very close to Florida in the US. Khrushchev hated Dwight D. Eisenhower, and it was lucky for us when Kennedy took over--as Khrushchev backed down, somewhat then.
Our primary reason for making Alaska (and maybe even Hawaii) a state was that it was so close to Russia--Alaska is practically connected to Russia--bad enough that Cuba is so close to Florida.
2007-02-19 12:11:00 · answer #3 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ah, you misunderstand - Kennedy wasn't talking about elective wars for profit based on lies leading to the dismantling of the Geneva Convention abroad and the writ of habeus corpus at home.
Context is everything. And if you don't think being the only person in a red state town to speak up for American values like the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law during Bush's burning time requires courage, well then perhaps you stayed home while pickup trucks were being driven into anti-war protesters.
What courage does it take to land in an impoverished country with big guns and a will to torture?
2007-02-19 12:09:10 · answer #4 · answered by t jefferson 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Not all democrats are cowards, most are just not too particularly fond of the current situation. I'm not going to go into a discussion about the situation in Iraq because I'm personally tired of hearing about it, many support war efforts, just in just wars. For example, I would fully support military action in Darfur, a place that does truly need help. However, the USA has a history about not giving a s*** about what goes on in Africa, and being primarily concerned with issues of Europe or the Middle east (major players in our economic interests)...I support war 100%, but when the war is fought over actual justice and liberty, not lobbying interests
2007-02-19 12:08:55 · answer #5 · answered by rman1201 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Joe, get authentic. If Kennedy were president as we talk what are the possibilities that a republican congress might want to vote for the balloting rights act? Conservatives as we talk are a lot extra radical than they were before. What befell to the Jacob Javitz's and Everett Dirksen's? And the structure? If republicans had their way the purely change contained in the unique bill of Rights that would want to keep on with to the states pursuant to the 14th might want to be the 2d.
2016-10-17 08:07:16 · answer #6 · answered by eth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, that started in Vietnam, and really applies to the far left of the party. The center of the democrats (blue dogs) actually do not have those thoughts.
Goldwater was pandering to the far left, the social revolution, in an attempt to get elected. However, he ventured a bit too far to the left, leaving the political mainstream, and Nixon got elected instead.
Edit - EMMA - sure they did - LBJ did it with Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin, a fabricated event), JFK with the Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Cambodia (LBJ), Bosnia (Clinton), this isn't something just for Republicans, it's fun for all sides!
2007-02-19 12:05:58 · answer #7 · answered by Big Super 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
the democrats are not cowards,,to get out in public and voice their beliefs takes a gutsy kind of person,,
I for one can not understand how the other people listening to them can keep a straight face,,really when you here them talk today ,,it's funny,, when you think of what they said yesterday,,
what i can't understand ,,are there not any dems that listen to themselves,,
another Kennedy quote starts "ASK not"
GEE "Our being in Iraq has no bearing on our survival"
exactly what I was saying right here
2007-02-19 12:18:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Today's Democrats were yesterday's hippies. Both Republicans and Democrats didn't like hippies.
Nancy Pelosi comes from a hippy city and is a certified hippy.
"Since The Democrat Party Has Been Hijacked By Hippy Pacifists, Do You Trust It To Protect The U.S.?"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AurWMKsoNYT9iBclvum.9tLsy6IX?qid=20070203143550AAUPGiH
Best Answer - Chosen By Voters: "Here's the ultimate in idiocy: last year on Hannity & Colmes (Fox News), they interviewed one of the San Francisco aldermen regarding the controversy of military recruitment on campus. This inhumanly stupid alderman said that recruitment was unnecessary because the U.S. didn't even need a military. (no joke)"
Here is proof of a San Francisco politician saying the U.S. doesn't need a military: "The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape."" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190867,00.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/23/MNGIOJ0G7P1.DTL
2007-02-19 12:05:06 · answer #9 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I totally agree! They have departed from what democrats used to be. Zell Miller is an old democrat and the dems want to 'kick him out" of the party.
JFK is an old Democrat. Teddy Kennedy is a dried up new dem.
2007-02-19 12:06:11 · answer #10 · answered by Dizney 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋