So just because the USSR tried to manipulate the peace movement therefore delegitimizes the entire peace movement?

No, not entire — there were sincere pacifists even during WW2 — and not automatically. We need to painfully examine, to what extent the peace movement was compromised by involvement of both USSR and domestic terrorists. You may suspect me of overestimating the enemy's impact, but you are certainly underestimating it.

I'm just raising awareness — so that the healing can begin.

When the US was about to resume shooting in Iraq in 2003, the whole world erupted in the biggest coordinated protest in history — and not by Iraqis, but by outraged Westerners expressing their sympathy.. Where were these peace-loving legions, when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014? What few protests there were, they were largely by Ukrainian expats with very few sympathetic locals in evidence. Why?

Because Putin's propaganda machine worked — on the entire spectrum of Western politics, not just the Left as the USSR used to. Rightist Jews in the US were accusing Ukraine's new "junta" of being "nazis", while actual American Nazis called the new government "Jews". Without arguing with each other, but both helped Putin. Most likely, they didn't realize it — but there is no doubt, a there is a group of analysts at FSB attached to each Western opinion-maker. US is a pathetic noob at this.

Wake up and smell "people's power" — and the power of propagandists to manipulate it.

it's there but when you speak out, you will get flamed for it as unpatriotic terrist commie pinko.

Citations needed.

can't exercise their skillset and background for 18 months after they leave a position without otherwise providing due compensation

But they are provided compensation! Certainly enough, that they consider it acceptable to work for Amazon knowing about the restriction.

Just because people choose to work in a place, doesn't mean they choose to trample the employer's rights. It works both ways — "the rich" have rights too, you know.

Or should he accept the job protecting his family from financial ruin now but at the possible non-compete expense further down the line?

We are all responsible for the choices we make. Each one is deciding for himself.

I can easily take your line of reasoning further — are the marital vows binding? How about Pledge of Allegiance — is that a "cohesive contract", that you are welcome to walk away from when money gets tight and a foreign power offers you payment in exchange for treason?

For some people, Amazon may the only reasonable option available at the time.

Well, if the non-compete clause is part of a (or even the) reasonable option, then what's the problem?

And it is not reasonable, then your statement is simply not true.

Fortunately, we don't need to decide it here for all — everyone can make their own choice.

As long as Amazon is not in a position to force anyone to work for them, what business is it of ours, what they ask of people willing to work for them?

There was a lot of paranoia about Communist conspiracies. The Rosenberg trials.

Is it really "paranoia" (a mental disease involving ungrounded fears) if the fear is substantiated? Rosenbergs really were Communist-spies, you know, who helped USSR obtain nuclear weapons sooner.

it wasn't irrational to believe that expansionist communism was a real threat

Well, it didn't stop being a real threat — as Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968 kept proving. But, somehow, that clear and present danger of Communism no longer played the role it played during Korea War. Why?

Like I said, the USSR's active stimulation of "peace"-movement's collective clitoris played a role. Perhaps, a decisive one...

You're talking about the public perception of the war, UN approval forms part of that public perception.

UN's approval or lack thereof, by all appearances, was used to justify the opposition to war later, when the questions like mine here started popping up. I could find no references to UN's decision (or absence of it) as a factor. Could you?

It's possible, but a far more likely factor is the fact they were very different wars at very different times.

Well, I explained, how they were similar — only a few years apart and both in far lands without evident immediate threat to the US.

The Korean war was over in 3 years. In Vietnam the US stepped into a long running conflict which ran a lot longer.

I fail to see, how the length of a conflict affects the justification of it.

You've also got media actually showing the home front what the battlefield actually looks like, that's a pretty profound change from previously where media pieces were basically clips from war movies.

Yes. And the fact that media at home chose to concentrate on the negative, instead of praising the troops in general and heralding acts of valor in particular is, in my opinion, explained by (at least, in part) by the enemy's propaganda efforts.

Finally you had a completely different culture in the 60's that was largely based on a rejection of authority

And where, one wonders, did that come from?

And where is it now, when questioning authority is not only not patriotic, but racist?

You don't need Soviet propaganda to explain the Vietnam peace movement

Well, we know for a fact (an inconvenient one), that USSR and other Communists were behind at least some of the "peace" organizations, such as the venerable World Peace Council.

The practice is still ongoing — an establishment calling itself "anti-war", for example, is calling for international approval of Russia's invasion into and annexation of Crimea — do you think, they would've approved of Kosovo or Kurdistan voting to become a United States' 51st state? Is it really over-the-board to wonder, if, perhaps, this Justin Raimondo is manipulated by Kremlin — whether he even knows it or not?

And the NSA hoovering up Americans' communications data.

NSA's domestic spying is highly secretive and covert.

They run away from any sunlight and do not engage in propaganda, which would've blown their secrets.

They supply information to other branches of government, but don't do anything with it themselves. Had they done anything of the kind, you've would've heard plenty about it from Snowden's fans...

Those reporters you say were flying in Hueys would've recorded numerous acts of heroism in addition to the screw-ups and war-crimes. Why did the media organizations back home choose to concentrate on the negative instead?

Where is the "question authority" sentiment now, when dissent is not only no longer patriotic, it is outright racist?

Hover's infiltration of civil right's organizations

That was a covert operation, which is a direct opposite of propaganda.

Hoover was running FBI — federal police — not military. Countering foreign agents and spies is openly and officially within the scope of such establishments in all countries and infiltration is a perfectly legitimate tactics.

"Interesting" my butt.

under the argument that they were aligned with communists.

Many were USSR-controlled (knowingly or not), in all likelihood. Some certainly were.

On the other hand, the US has always had a rather loose interpretation of 'war fighting outside' which allowed for usage on disruptive elements of American society too.

Citations?

Compare our invasion of Korea with that of Vietnam only a few years later. Before you say "Korea was UN-approved" — no, that's a lame excuse. Stalin boycotted UN at the time action on Korea was decided, but by the time of Vietnam USSR has changed its approach. That's all.

In both cases American military was sent to fight in remote lands against people, who didn't threaten America directly in any way — for fear of the domino effect of Communism. In both cases the fighting was heavy and numerous war-crimes have taken place.

And yet, there was no domestic opposition to the Korean war — virtually none. No protests against the draft, no accusations of returning soldiers being "baby-killers". John Kerry, for example, has gained more political capital for opposing the war (and returning his medals), than for fighting in it (for an entire 4 months).

Vietnam was widely considered a national shame long before the war was lost. Meanwhile the only source of any negativity about the Korean war in mass culture was the M*A*S*H series.

Why was the domestic reaction to the two wars so drastically different? The theory of propagandists controlled and funded (with or without their own knowledge) by the USSR would explain the known facts.

It's only those damn Russians are doing this, all other countries are saint.

Excluded middle much? Other countries may be doing this — or planning to catch-up — but Russia has been doing this on massive scale for many years — all the while, in a classic fit of projection, accusing others of it.

Another difference is, the US, for example, may consider such propaganda a war-fighting tool to be used outside, but Putin's regime — according to TFA — is happy to use it to prop the government domestically.

Then, I suppose, for knuckle-dragging simpletons happy to equate Joe McCarthy with Lavrenty Beria, none of the above makes any difference...