16 votes

In 2005, War-Monger Mitch McConnell Called Senators "ISOLATIONISTS" Who Tried Keeping U.S. Out of WWI

In May 23, 2005, Mitch McConnell was Assistant Majority Leader of the Senate.

He was speaking about filibuster rules.

In 1917, 11 Senators tried to stop the War-Mongering Socialist Woodrow Wilson from getting the United States involved in World War One. They used the filibuster for that but obviously ultimately failed.

Wilson was trying to pass the "Armed Ship Bill" which he SAID was only for defense of merchant ships, but we all know better than that, and so did those 11 senators.

McConnell slammed those senators as "isolationists."

McConnell is a long-time Neo-Con in the style of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Bolton, Bush 1 & 2, Bremer, Wolfowotz and most of the rest of the republican party for that matter.

WWI (along with the income tax and Federal Reserve) was the beginning of the end of liberty in the United States.

A new threshold was crossed wherein the U.S. became a warfare state and got involved in a war which had nothing to do with us. We haven't stopped war-mongering ever since.

What a peach of a man McConnell is - Apparently at ease with the untold American deaths and casualties from that totally unnecessary and immoral (banker's) war - and all the following wars which stemmed from it.

In the video below, jump to 6:30 to hear McConnell criticize those few good senators back then who tried to avoid a war which lead to an even bigger war (by design).

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/595884752



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jaseed's picture

Interesting conversation...

but all I want is pawnstorm's profile picture as mine, as well!

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Thanks Jaseed. Your profile pic is cool too.

But I must say I am pretty proud of mine - If only it had come to pass!

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Surprise, surprize, surpriizzze

It was all about oil...the protection for the continued hegemonic Anglo control of the Iranian oil fields, the blocking of the Ottoman-Gemany alliance to extend the Orient Express to Basra, and the divvying up of the Iraqi Oil fields in Basra between the Anglo's and Standard Oil as the "pay-off" for American blood.

The first divisions to leave England, didn't land in France...they went directly to Basra.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Also interesting to note

is that WWI would have ended in a stalemate, both sides were out of resources, that is until the USA entered on the side of England. Most here will already know how the declaration of belfour hastened the entry of the USA into the war and how the effects of this are still here today.

I totally agree with you...

what I would like to know is when we lost the country after the revolution. 1812? Civil war? WW1, 2, I think it matters in that one may be able to put their figer exactly on who to go to for "answers" and "punishment." We all suspect but, it would be a little easier to concentrate on the "source."

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS

I could argue (or at lesat ask) that the Revolutionary War...

...was the last war with a foreign country which we should have been involved in.

The Civil War may have been unavoidable because we had to get rid of slavery at any cost.

But by keeping our noses out of all other foreign wars, we would not have gotten involved in WWI which led directly and ineveitably to WWII. Almost as by design (Treaty of Versaiile???).

I'm not knowldegable enough about the War of 1812 to say for sure if it could have been avoided - and maybe it was more a defensive war which is a different subject.

The Spanish-American War must be in question as well and I plead ignorant there too.

I'm speaking specifically of FOREIGN wars we've been involved with.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

While we certainly had to get

While we certainly had to get rid of slavery, we didn't need a war to do it. Every other country that had slavery ended it without a civil war.

huh?

"The Civil War may have been unavoidable because we had to get rid of slavery at any cost."

We needed nearly a million dead Americans so we could rid ourselves of slavery? Is there a number that would have been too high a price?

How did every other developed nation get rid of slavery without civil war?

Dear VR...Did you notice that I said the Civil War "MAY" have...

...been unavoidable.

But you missed my main point which was the idea that we should not have gone to any war with any foreign war since the Revolutionary War.

And even THAT one was fought on our own soil.

So I will submit that we should never have gone to ANY conflict in any other foreign country.

And I think I can win that argument - But not necessarily change any War-Monger's mind.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Did notice

It's this part with which I had a problem:
".... because we had to get rid of slavery at any cost."

I welcome your response.

So you DON'T think we had to get rid of slavery at any cost?

Slavery is the antithesis to liberty. The EXACT OPPOSITE in fact.

Since this nation was founded on the very principle of individual LIBERTY, how could anyone justify slavery in any form and for such a length of time as it existed here?

While I've always wished the founders had abolished slavery at the outset, I know that realistically they had their hands full enough just trying to break away from the British empire.

On top of that, writing such a constitution as never before conceived in the history of man.

There WERE abolishinists at the founding, but they were out-numbered.

So in the end, they came up with the ridiculous "3/5 of a man" rule to justify the continuation of slavery and to get the votes needed to ratify the Constitution by the states which supported slavery.

So yes - we had to get rid of slavery at any cost.

You can look around and say that other countries were ending slavery without a civil war and MAYBE it would have happened here in time.

But this nation had reached a point in its life when it realized something had to be done because national guilt had reached a boiling point.

But those who owned slave HAD no guilt or trepeditions about it.

In fact, THEY were the sub-humans - not the slaves who they considered sub-human so they could live with themselves.

And it was THEY who chose to make a civil war over it. They could have voluntarily done away with slavery but they had no intentions of doing it.

Let's put it this way - you weren't ever going to find any abolishinists in the south - possibly to this day.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

There is much right

in what you write, and much wrong as well.

Since I will never type as much as you, let's go back to my original questions:
#1 Is there a number that would have been too high a price?
#2 How did every other developed nation get rid of slavery without civil war?

To answer your question was an easy , 'no'

I'll answer them again since you chose to dismiss my answers...

Q#1: Is there a number that would have been too high a price?
Answer: NO

Q#2: How did every other developed nation get rid of slavery without civil war?

Answer: Most of them got rid of it after WE abolished it. If we had let it go on until it somehow magically ended on its own, it could still be going on and you can't prove that it sould not have. And without our ending it, it would have gone on a lot longer in those countries which eventually did get rid of it.

The South wouldn't have agreed to peacably end it on its own.

My question is how long would YOU have been willing to let slavery go on without a fight?

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Nice tactic

You respond here to a post that is later in this thread.

To question #1 .... 5 million, 10 million, or 20 million would not have been too much?

To question #2 .... Please provide some evidence of your assertion, 'Most of them got rid of it after WE abolished it.'

To your question .... Slavery wasn't going on without a fight.

I don't know - what's YOUR number? I say whatever it took.

On question #2, we could argue it indefinitely. But I think my point is proven from the timeline below.

In fact many countries had already abolished slavery before we did.

Even Jefferson tried to get rid of it, but to no avail. The U.S. passed laws and trid to abolish it, but the South would have none of it because economically they made out too well, and doesn't everything come down to money anyway?

Here are some hilites from th timeline. In fact we were quite behind the rest of the world and tried everything politically we could to end it, but like I said, the South was not going down without a fight - as history has proven.

----------------------------------

1806: U.S. President Thomas Jefferson in a message to Congress calls for criminalizing the international slave trade, asking Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights … which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe."

1807, 2 March: Jefferson signs the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves into law in the U.S. which took effect 1 January 1808.

1807, 25 March: Abolition of the Slave Trade Act abolishes slave trading in British Empire. Captains fined £120 per slave transported.

1807: 22 July: The constitution of the Duchy of Warsaw abolishes serfdom

1807: The British begin patrols of African coast to arrest slaving vessels. The West Africa Squadron (Royal Navy) is established to suppress slave trading; by 1865, nearly 150,000 people freed by anti-slavery operations[32]

1807: Abolition of serfdom in Prussia through the Stein-Hardenberg Reforms.

1807: In the U.S. Northwest Territory (present-day Michigan), Territorial Justice Augustus Woodward denies the return of two slaves owned by a man in Windsor, Upper Canada (present day Ontario). Woodward declares that any man “coming into this Territory is by law of the land a freeman.”[33]

1808: In the United States, Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves takes effect 1 Jan.[34]
----------------------
(Meanwhile, over 50 years later slavery still existed big time here)
----------------------
Here is a Slavery Abolition Timeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

You continue to avoid

directly answering the questions. 'Whatever it took'? 40 million?

So far, I get that any number of deaths would have been ok with you, and that history eludes you. Did you read the timeline?

Onward Through The Fog

OK VR...You said "no" to the question of whether we had to...

...abolish slavery at any cost. Fair enough, now I know where you're coming from.

Apparently you would have been comfortable letting slavery go on (until possibly the present day because you can't prove WHEN it might have ended), and to just say "Oh well, someday I'm sure they'll get rid of it. But we just shouldn't fight over it."

So do you also think that the American Revolutionaries should not have gone to war against their British oppressors, and maybe just hoped that one day things would change for the better?

I mean, we gained our own original independence at any cost did we not?

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

among the least PC of comments I'll ever make

"So do you also think that the American Revolutionaries should not have gone to war against their British oppressors,"

This is hardly analogous as the American Revolutionaries fought for their own freedom.

Apparently

you have an aversion to answering questions, and I have an aversion to speaking with those that cannot answer questions.

Let's call it a day.