It's interesting that the neoconservatives of today are saying the same thing. They're both wrong, of course. Concession does not equal surrender. As Confucius wrote, you're never going to get everything you want, or nothing that you want -- you make concessions and the other side makes concessions and you reach an agreement. That's how you achieve an enduring solution.

Duh. (I guess Mao was an astute observer of the obvious.)

Yep, force has certainly worked miracles in Afghanistan and Iraq, hasn't it? Not to mention the Middle East. And the Sudan -- all of Africa, actually. And South America. And the Pacific Rim. And Russia. And eastern Europe. And Cyprus. And Cuba... Read your history, folks. Violence always seems like the expedient solution in theory, but in the real world it seldom provides a lasting solution, unless you're dealing with a maniac, and sometimes not even then.

Often quoted, seldom read carefully or understood.

Agree with Mike.

While I know what he was trying to say, opinions, by definition, are neither true nor false.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

I think we're missing the point, as did LBJ, apparently. The "inalienable rights" argument was necessary in the Declaration of Independence because the British were white, English, and Protestant -- just as most colonists were. They had to have some other basis on which to justify independence. Prevailing thought at the time was that rights arose from the actions of government, or evolved from tradition, and neither of those could provide anything "inalienable." So for LBJ to say, in effect, that prevailing thought had not changed from 1776 to the 1960s is a bit ludicrous, IMHO.

And protectionist rhetoric. Since when is "social and political control" of anything a good thing?

Would that our current president had read this 6 years ago -- but of course, he has said (and seems proud of it) that "books are Laura's thing."

Like many of the soundbites spoken by JFK (or written for him), it sounds great and means nothing in the real world.

He's talking about the brand of "justice" doled out the Irish by the British during his lifetime.

Sure, blame the media, shoot the messenger. (The only selective processing I see is on the Fox Noise Channel.) My father, who served in both World Wars and returned with a chestful of medals and a legful of shrapnel, was deeply offended when the Nixon administration, none of whose members had ever served in combat (Nixon spent WW2 playing poker in a Navy supply depot) questioned his patriotism when he opined that the Vietnam war was a colossal mistake from Day 1. Our government should welcome dissent, not condemn it as "surrender."

Actually, these words represent poor research. With very few exceptions (WW2, Vietnam), naked force has never provided a lasting solution to any problem in modern times. The losing side might retreat temporarily, but within a generation hostilities start up all over again. By and large, lasting resolution of major issues comes from reason, not from force.