|
30 Dec 03 - 07:22 AM (#1082245) Subject: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: InOBU There are few humans who can say they saved the planet. Well, one day, in the Cuban missile crisis, every advisor in the White House, the entire cabinet and joint chiefs advised Kennedy that he had a two day window to destroy the Cuban missiles, as their "intellegence" had found that the missiles did not have war heads as yet, and that the nucs where going to arrive on a spesific boat at a spesific time. The troops were assembled and the bombers ready to go. JFK said no. As it turns out, late in the 1990's it came to light that Cuba did indeed have a large number of tactical and longrange armed missiles. The moment our planes started towards them, they would have launched destroying most of our big cities, we would have launched against Russia, who would have launched against us and game over. Kennedy was one of the most intelligent men of his day. He said the game was not over Cuba, but over Berlin. He said if we went into Cuba, Russia would have international support to go into western Germany. He was likely right, but, the bigger picture was even worse than he could emagine. It is not always about force. Today, we have a leader with no subtlty to his thought or his methods. God help us. Larry |
|
30 Dec 03 - 07:29 AM (#1082249) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: kendall He doesn't understand consequences. Being the most powerful country in the world makes us "bullet proof". NOT!! "The smallest dog can piss on the biggest building." |
|
30 Dec 03 - 07:39 AM (#1082256) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: InOBU Kendall! There is a harmony on earth, as you wrote this, I was writing about guns on planes and used the "NOT!" convention... I seldom use... the harmonics of the universe, eh? Larry |
|
30 Dec 03 - 08:34 AM (#1082286) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Big Mick If only Dubya would read Larry's original post...... then he would understand wisdom. Mick |
|
30 Dec 03 - 09:41 AM (#1082315) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: catspaw49 Well Mick, that opens up a whole new can of worms. First you have to teach the fucker to read and then there's the whole comprehension thing................lots of problems here......... Spaw |
|
30 Dec 03 - 10:16 AM (#1082331) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Art Thieme Right on!!! Maybe there's truth to be gleaned from revisionist historical thinking after all. It's simply sad that the major participants are dead and cannot see these futuristic ruminations on their times in the spotlight. And possibly it never ever mattered that (terror of all terrors) the man liked to have sex with ladies. Same for Bill Clinton Art Thieme |
|
30 Dec 03 - 10:35 AM (#1082342) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,Tinker in Chicago It's wrong always to use force, yes, but it's also naive to think that diplomacy and patience always work. Was Neville Chamberlain wise or stupid when he tried to stop Hitler with earnest conversations instead of weapons? A non-violent philosophy is a nice thing to have, but it seldom accomplishes much in the real world, which is why we glorify the exceptional leaders who can succeed with it, e.g. Ghandi. But years of sanctions and UN resolutions meant nothing to Saddam, a dictator (sorry, BBC, but that's what he was) who slaughtered thousands of his own people, made war on at least three nearby nations (Iran, Kuwait and Israel), permitted torture and rape as his sons' birthright, etc., etc. Yeah, they haven't found the WMD's, but they found a lot of mass graves. Is that somehow more acceptable? It's so easy to slam Bush, especially from across an ocean. But what would you have suggested, instead of the war, that could have removed Hussein from power? What exactly would have been a better idea that would have accomplished the same goal in the same time frame? Ask any parent. Threats of punishment carry no force unless the punishments occasionally occur. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 10:58 AM (#1082367) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: InOBU Tinker, my dear: I write from an appartment in downtown New York, still with grey dust in the corners... I marched against the US giving mr. Husain weapons like gas before many on the right could point to Iraq on a map... This is no more about safety for the US than Cuba was about danger of a communist invation of Florida. This whole sillyness is to control the flow of oil away from China. How would I have done things differently? I would encourage a common market of China Japan and India as the industrial center in a partnership with the third world. Now, a down side for the comander in chimp, is that we would no longer get 70 percent of the worlds natural resourses, and so we could not afford to keep the three percent which gave birth to the Bush and Cheney family at the top of the pyramid... but, on the good side, the life expectancy as well as the standard of living for the rest of us would benifit by getting out from under the thumb of the military industrial complex. Fact is, I would rather have the safty of a decent living wage and health care than a big nucular terroist threat pointing at the rest of the world for my tax money. Cheers Larry |
|
30 Dec 03 - 11:03 AM (#1082371) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Big Mick Larry, this GUEST is not Tinker, a registered member from New Jersey. This is a newer visitor to our forum. Welcome. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 11:06 AM (#1082372) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: McGrath of Harlow "Saddam, a dictator (sorry, BBC, but that's what he was)" "BBC"? About the only people who have ever tried to cover up the dictatorial and oppressive nature of Saddam's regime have been foreign governments who found it convenient to support him and to help him get hold of arms and so forth. Including, never let it be forgot, the US and UK governments back in the '80s. A very nasty regime, but that's nothing new or unusual. Was it a price worth paying to get rid of him? It's arguable, but there are a lot of people who would probably disagree - and I'm thinking primarily of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who had loved ones wiped out in the process. At the time when Saddam was killing his people the outside world sat back and watched, and even assisted him. There is no evidence that the attack on Iraq did anything significant to save lives in Iraq from Saddam. Plenty of evidence that it killing a whole lot more people. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 11:37 AM (#1082402) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,Janet Ryan posting Ah, so Big Mick now looks up the IPs of everyone posting as a guest to Mudcat, and publishes the information he gleans as a Joe Clone in the forum "for our own good". It is SO GREAT that Big Brother Mick is watching the terrorists--oops! I mean "guests"! (tee hee). He is struttin' his "in charge of Mudcat security" and looking so manly wearing that new stormtrooper costume he got for Christmas from L'il John Ashcroft. GOD, I feel SO MUCH SAFER now. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 11:51 AM (#1082416) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Big Mick No, Janet. That is not how I figured out who this person is. I simply clicked on their name to see if they had posted before. Tough, eh? And the only thing you are upset about is that you can't continue to attack people from behind a veil of secrecy. Self righteous, opinionated trolls hate that, don't they? Back to the subject at hand with apologies for the drift. Mick |
|
30 Dec 03 - 11:58 AM (#1082422) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: SINSULL Janet, Even I knew that Tinker From Chicago is not the same as Tinker - a member from New Jersey - and I don't have access to IPs. Why jump to the conclusion that Mick is checking IPs? Catspaw - behave yourself. The f**ker can read. Don't make it worse than it already is. Guest Tinker - why did Sadam have to be removed "in the same time frame"? No weapons of mass destruction rule out the Bush administration's original reason. In time, the UN could have gotten the job done with a lot less loss of human life and damage to Iraq in general. Damage which we now have to pay for as we bury our dead and watch a whole new generation of Iraqis hate us for killing their fathers in the military and anyone else who had the misfortune to be in the way. And to add icing to the cake, we are more likely than ever to see terrorist attacks on American soil. Admittedly, that is a fact of life post September 11. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:06 PM (#1082429) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST, Darth Vader's mother A question: How STOOOPID do you have to be to think that putting the word BIG before your name, or using pseudonymous cutsie names to identify yourself, is somehow morally superior to anonymous posting? Oh, I forgot. YOU ARE A WANNABE IRISH BARD. But that doesn't explain why you think guests care what you and the Mudcat royals think of us. Oh, the humanity. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:09 PM (#1082430) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Big Mick Janet, your attempt to hijack this thread isn't going to work. I will not respond to you anymore in this thread. Rant on, but everyone knows what you are up to. And I am what I am. I apologize to Larry for the drift. Mick |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:13 PM (#1082436) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: SINSULL Darth/Janet - any chance of coming up with some cash for that guitar???? |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:14 PM (#1082439) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,Dear Abby FLASH FROM MY ADVICE COLUMN: While you have OBVIOUSLY annointed yourself Mudcat knight in shining armor as part of your delusional fantasies, someone really needs to tell it like it is to you: We're really not seeing you that way at all. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:19 PM (#1082445) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Jeri Janet, it doesn't take any sort of insider information to recognize your style, but it IS nice that you chose to finally attach a name to some messages. People probably had believed George H, myself, and a few others had just made you up! I saw a very good documentary on Kennedy and the Cuban missle crisis. It seems just about everybody thought we should invade Cuba. Kennedy, I think, was willing to do whatever it took to get the best results despite public opinion OR the opinions of his advisors. Bush seems mainly concerned with public opinion and image, and doesn't seem to care about the long-term effects of his actions. "Long-term" meaning "after the war is over" in his case. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:27 PM (#1082452) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: SINSULL I remember the Cuban Missile crisis too well. My parents sat us all down and gave us strict instructions on what to do if there was a nuclear attack. There were five of us who were to meet (presumably it would happen during the school day) and walk north. We had a cabin in the Catskills. We were not to try to get home or find our parents, just get out of the city. Apparently Kennedy's good judgement prevented that scenario. Sept. 11 bought back those memories. There must be thousands of parents who have had similar talks with their children. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:30 PM (#1082456) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: harpgirl Newsflash, Mount Olympus!!! My guess is that this person is not bbelle but is actually Lepus Rex, our mischievious Minnesota miscreant, who reminds us the Emporer has no clothes! We should love him, too! After all, it takes a village! |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:31 PM (#1082457) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Big Mick Yep, I was at a Boy Scout meeting. I remember vividly the group of 12, 13 year old boys, scared to death, outside the high school gym watching the skies and talking about dying. Mick |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:37 PM (#1082462) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST Well what a GREAT IDEA! Now harpiegirl and Jericurl are on board too! It looks like Big Prick has got the membership ROCKIN' in yet another round of the FULL TILT EXPOSE THE GUEST GAME!!! ALL RIGHT!!! Let's take this shit to every thread in the house, people. It's time to rip away those veils, and GUESS WHO IS COMING TO DINNER! |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:38 PM (#1082465) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: SINSULL Dying??? My fear was not dying. Radiation burns, blindness, riots - I hoped I would die and quickly. Pathetic for children to live with that kind of fear. And of course they do everywhere. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 12:58 PM (#1082479) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: McGrath of Harlow "morally superior to anonymous posting..." Please (and pardon me for bellowing a moment - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING ANONYMOUS. "Anonymous" means choosing not to share the details of whom we are with other people; there is nothing wrong with choosing that and noone has ever criticised it, that I have ever seen. Everyone here is as anonymous as they wish to be. The problem arises, when it arises, arises from two things. One is when someone deliberately set out to be genuinely and unfairly abusive towards others, and uses anonymity as a kind of weapon. The other is when people persistently post without any kind of handle attached to GUEST (even a temporary one for a particular thread where other people may be doing the same thing). There seems to be a consensus which views this as disrupting the free flow of communication, and as discourteous to other people who use Mudcat. That should be a good enough reason not to do it. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 01:01 PM (#1082485) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,Crackhead More Mudcat echo chamber effect from McGrath. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 01:02 PM (#1082486) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,Crackhead More Mudcat echo chamber effect from McGrath. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 02:42 PM (#1082584) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Gareth Hmmm ! - I am old enuf' to remember JFK. A question comes to mind tho - Why did the Soviets deem it neccessary to place weapons of defence in Cuba ? - To follow a favourite trheme of some why was the United Nations not used to remove them ? Gareth |
|
30 Dec 03 - 03:02 PM (#1082601) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Jeri The impression I have is that 'defensive' was what they were called, but not what they were intended for. The Soviets believed Kennedy was a weak president. It's quite possible they planned to make the first move. Who knows? I remember those drills in school - sitting down in the hallway and covering our heads. It seems like that's where the current administration got the idea for duct tape and plastic sheeting. "It won't do a hell of a lot, but it'll make 'em feel like it's not completely out of their control." |
|
30 Dec 03 - 03:37 PM (#1082625) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: DougR I doubt it Larry. I think it would be difficult to point to any one thing other than the handling of the Cuba situation that JFK did was very notible at all. He didn't have enough time unfortunately. However, I do believe that George W. Bush may have ...by invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam and his cut-throat gang. Why do you think Moammar Gadhafi decided not to pursue developing weapons of mass destruction? Surely not because he suddenly decided to become a "nice" guy! He saw what happened to his buddy Saddam, and decided it might be a bit more healthy to become one of the civilized nations of the world. Don't be shocked if Iran and North Korea follow suit. DougR |
|
30 Dec 03 - 03:46 PM (#1082634) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST "Don't be shocked if Iran and North Korea follow suit." Hahaha that's a good one there Doug. I promise not to be shocked, if you promise not to be shocked when the Pakistan Taliban, led by Osame hisself, nukes us in another month or so when they get Musharraf out of the way. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 03:55 PM (#1082644) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: DougR GUEST: you REALLY think bin Laden is going to show his-self? Special Forces will probably get him before he has a chance. I DO believe they will get him, whether dead, or alive, I know not. DougR |
|
30 Dec 03 - 04:01 PM (#1082651) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Gareth Well, we all have our respective views on JFK, and Nikita Krushov (SP?) - Possibly coloured by our respective ages and political stances. But one thing still puzzels me ? Why did JFK not go to the UN to remove these weapons ? Why were sanctions not applied untill Castro removed these weapons from Cuban soil ? Gareth |
|
30 Dec 03 - 04:24 PM (#1082671) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: InOBU Ah, DougR: Ben Laudin does not matter, times make the man, not man the times. We are makeing tens of thousands of Ben Laudins with our heavy handed approach to running the world. The point made about Pakistan is a fear on the right and the left. The more we destablize the world the more dangerous it is. Most people did not understand how strong Clinton was, when he called Musharraf in on the carpet and told him to back down and he did. There is an old Gypsy advice, don't hurt an adversary, he will want revenge, make him afraid and you remain in control. Of course, as I said above, there is a third option, create a better future, as with the melting ice caps, we can't afford the waisters like Bush and Cheney's crowd. Hey... Doug I hope you get to New York, one of these days, ol' skin! We can go listen to some nice Irish music and put politics aside for an evening! Cheers, Larry |
|
30 Dec 03 - 04:28 PM (#1082672) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Charley Noble I thought the conventional wisdom was that the Soviets moved missiles into Cuba in response to our positioning missiles near their borders in Western Europe and Turkey. This was before there were large fleets of submarines bristling with missiles that could be launched from underwater close to a target country's shore. Charley Noble |
|
30 Dec 03 - 04:39 PM (#1082678) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,Boab So J.f.k. saved th world, eh? All through calling the bluff on Kruschkev over the set-up of nukes in Cuba? A wee suggestion to all Americans; for a very unusual change, look at the map of the world , not with the USA as the centre piece, but with the old USSR as the focus. Then consider--was there ANY direction the soviets could cast their eyes and say " there are no missiles pointing at us from over there!"? I'm not naive enough to believe that the destruction of the Cuban missiles was a badthing. Butnobody in the US or other western nations has the right to "point fingers". |
|
30 Dec 03 - 04:44 PM (#1082679) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST There was no diplomatic infrastructure for the UN to become involved to intervene. There were also no nuclear treaties at the time, so neither the US r UN could use treaty abrogration to justify a military intervention under international law at that time. Then, just like now, the leaders of the countries involved were simply playing a dangerous game of military chicken. I'm not sure when the IAEA came into being, but I'm 99.9% certain that there was no infrastructure for inspections then, as there is now, because there were only "us and them" as nuclear powers at the time. It is certain the US would never allow, not then, not now, any foreign or international inspecitions of our nuclear programs. As to sanctions against Cuba, the US had had an embargo against Cuba since the time you speak of Gareth, and the Bush administration is currently "strengthening" it because so many US businesses, not to mention the European ones, are now operating in Cuba. Just another way for Bush to buy votes in the Florida Cuban exile community for the 2004 election. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 05:04 PM (#1082691) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST For those of you who thought the capture of Saddam was the big news this month, you might want to find out how many assassination attempts against Musharraf have come this close to succeeding in the last 60 days. And just who do you suppose is trying to blow his American puppet ass off the face of the Pakistan plains? Now imagine this: You are the Taliban, once supported by the American government in your holy war against the Russian invaders. Then the American government ignored you, and you made an unholy alliance with Al Qaida, also once supported by the American government. After being toppled from power in Afghanistan and being forced to live in caves along the Afghan/Pakistan border for a cupla years, you finally manage to stage a military coup in Pakistan. A good enough portion of the Pakistan military is on your side. You are really pissed at the British, the Americans, the Indians, and the Israelis. You Taliban now have at least a six pack of nukes, and the capability to nuke those who you perceive as having done you wrong. Knowing the Anglo American axis of infidels is at your doorstop, poised to invade, what do you do? Discuss? No. Nuke the bastard infidels? You bet. Bagging Saddam didn't mean jack shit in the geopolitical nuke chicken game, despite Doug's neo con fantasies to the contrary. Why? Because we already knew neither Iraq, Iran, Korea, or Libya has nukes. But we know for sure that Pakistan does. But never mind that. I'm SO SURE capturing Saddam will act as the great shield from those pesky Paki nukes, and keep us safe from all evil. Aaaaaahhhhhhmmmmmeeeennnnn. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 05:13 PM (#1082693) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: McGrath of Harlow The USA, under Kennedy had sponsored one invasion of Cuba, which came unstuck at the Bay of Pigs. Inviting in a bunch of nuclear missiles was intended as a way of deterring another invasion. In responding to the invitation Khruschev was doing what the USA had done any number of times over the previous decade and a half, which was how it had come about that there were nuclear missiles and nuclear bombers sited all around the place pointing at the USSR. The most remarkable thing about it all was that, having promised not to mount any more invasions of Cuba, as a quid pro quo for having the missiles removed, the USA has actually kept that promise, even after the USSR had collapsed. That's quite impressive, honourable even. Of course, how long that kind of honour can be relied on under the present regime is perhaps another matter. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 05:31 PM (#1082705) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST It has nothing to do with honor, McGrath. It has to do with the number of nukes the Russians have, regardless of the empire collapsing. They still have all their nukes, and they are pointed at us. It was, and still is, called the "MAD" strategy. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 05:42 PM (#1082715) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: McGrath of Harlow Is there any reason to think that the present lot in Russia have any interest whatever in what happens to Cuba? Or in fact in anything outside Russia itself? |
|
30 Dec 03 - 05:45 PM (#1082721) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: InOBU Boab... you have taken my point backwards, I was saying that he saved the world, NOT by calling Russia's bluff... but by NOT bombing Cuba, as his advisors were telling him was the only plan... Sometimes we read what we expect to read... my point was, if he had bombed Cuba, Cuba launched against us, we launched against Russia, Russia against us... this conversation whould not be happening... Read my post again, mate, \Cheers Larry |
|
30 Dec 03 - 06:46 PM (#1082769) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,petr Idont believe that JFK saved the world, while I do think he always tried to do the right thing, in this case he brought the world very close to nuclear war. The soviets supposedly backed down, but very few people seem to know that part of the deal with USSR is that the US remove its missiles from TURkey, (what were they doing there?) During the crisis, the US set up a naval blockade, and what was one of the first things they encountered? A Soviet sub. They fired a depth charge (a distance away from it) as a signal to surface. Although they were unaware that the Soviet sub had lost radio contact with the USSR and that the Captain had the ability to launch nuclear weapons - at his discretion (this fact only came out in the 90s after the collapse of the USSR, to which MacNamara (defense sec. at the time) that was the closest the world came to nuclear war. the missiles in cuba and Turkey were irrelevant within a few years, when the large nuclear subs of both nations carried enough warheads to destroy all the major cities of the either country. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 07:08 PM (#1082789) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Gareth Dear Guest, Duck and weave, dodge and hide as much as you like and invent "reasons" for as long as you like - The fact remains Kennedy did not take this to the United Nations. He could have done so. Sanctions continue. Castro continues despite assasination attempt after assasination attempt. Am I asking awkward questions comparing Kennedy with Bush ? And whilst Castro is no angel, to compare his regime and records on civil liberties with Saddam H is pure rubbish. Gareth |
|
30 Dec 03 - 07:17 PM (#1082796) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: McGrath of Harlow We can be pretty thankful for Khruschev as well. Mind it's a bit strange that we feel we owe gratitude to people for not being homicidal and suicidal maniacs. But then we look around, and there's a good few of those around in positions of power, so gratitude makes sense. |
|
30 Dec 03 - 07:44 PM (#1082818) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST Gareth, are you delusionary or what? I'm not trying to duck and hide a thing. What are you on about anyway? You asked a question, I gave an answer. You want a transcript of the tit for tat debate between Adlai Stevenson and V.A. Zorin at the UN emergency Security Council meeting called by Cuba to try and keep the US from bombing them back to the Stone Age? Go here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1962-cuba-un1.html The UN DID offer to do a great deal to resolve the crisis, which was blown off by the US. A few of those things the UN attempted to do: 1. Fly air reconnaissance in the place of US military. 2. Enter all Cuban ports as official UN observers to inspect all cargo entering and leaving the country, including what the Kennedy administration referred to as "offensive weapons" photographed at the missile sites. 3. Negotiate an end to the US military blockade. It should be noted that then Sec Gen U Thant was skeptical about US intelligence claims, because of the nuclear chicken game that the US military, at times without the knowledge or permission of the President of the US, was playing with the Soviets. The Soviets sending nukes into Cuba was a response to the US sending it's missiles to Europe and the Middle East, as others here have noted. The US military was fucking out of control, and JFK was clueless about it until after the fact. SAC went to DefCon2 without informing the president, blew off a couple of nukes in the Pacific and Vandenberg AFB, also without informing the President. U Thant was begging for a cooling off period, which Krushcev agreed to but JFK DID NOT. The US Navy illegally boarded a Soviet ship on high seas, and fucking Walter Lippman tried to broker a Cuba/Turkey withdrawal of nukes deal between Kruschev and Kennedy. JFK, with the help of Robert MacNamara in particular, fucked up plenty of shit when they created the nuke crisis. Now, how about you give us some of your exhaustive knowledge about all this? Or are you just doing your usual right wing bellyaching about somebody starting a JFK worshipping thread? |
|
31 Dec 03 - 12:15 AM (#1082958) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: NicoleC Well, Doug, here's the way the score stands on Bush -- WMD destroyed in Afghanistan by force: 0. American casualties: 51, with troops still in harms way Afghani casualties: probably about 3,000 - 3,400, may be as high as 7,000. WMD found in Iraq by force: 0. American casualties: 507 and rising. Iraqi casualties: somewhere around 10,000 and rising. WMD destroyed after months of negotations with the "rogue" state of Libya: final count pending American casualties: 0 Libyan casualties: 0 The negotiations with Libya should be a major coup for the Bush administration; it's a fine piece of work. Too bad he didn't bother to try that approach elsewhere; the blood on his hands isn't getting washed off by this one significant achievement. The reporting in the media has been, well, dull. Nobody is getting blow up, so it really isn't getting much press despite it's importance. If you haven't seen the current issue of Army Times, I highly suggest it. The perspective is... poignant and concise and apolitical. The team of diplomats and negotiators involved in Libya should be applauded, rewarded and drafted to go to work with other countries whether they like it or not! :) |
|
31 Dec 03 - 12:48 AM (#1082966) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: DougR Nicole C: You don't for a moment believe that Libya would have made the move they made UNLESS GWB had invaded Iraq do you? DougR |
|
31 Dec 03 - 07:20 AM (#1083042) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Gareth No Anon Guest - I am doing my usual exposure of double standards. If you don't like that it your problem not mine. Gareth |
|
31 Dec 03 - 02:08 PM (#1083324) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Little Hawk Everyone does what appears to make the best sense from their own perspective. Everyone. Castro, the USA, Russia, Lybia, Saddam... If you find someone who can comprehend the other guy's perspective as well as his own...and even respect it...then you have a statesman. If you find someone who can see outside the box of his/her own set of familiar cultural assumptions...then you have a wise and liberated person, capable of change. Any fool can defend only what he is familiar with and slaughter thousands or millions of fellow humans in the process. It's the level of awareness seen in simple creatures, like animals, but simple creatures do not possess weapons of mass destruction, and they do not cling to old rituals of hatred and malice the way politicised animals like human beings do. We are gods...capable of the grandest achievments and the most evil and miserable acts. That's the challenge of being human...you can rise to the level of a god or descend to the level of a demon. Just a matter of choice...and choices are made according to one's level of awareness. There were some key moments when JFK acted in a way that gravely endangered the World, and some key moments when he acted in a way that saved it. We could argue the pros and cons of it forever, but be glad he loved life, in the end, more than "victory". Remember that crazy guy in Apocalyse Now? "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like...victory!" Uh-huh. The voice of the demon, who glories in death and loves life only to the extent that he can rob it from others whenever he pleases. - LH |
|
31 Dec 03 - 02:23 PM (#1083332) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: NicoleC No Doug, because the negotiations were started BEFORE Iraq was invaded. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 02:45 PM (#1083342) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Don Firth Crediting Bush's invasion of Iraq with Libya coming around is like crediting the rooster for the rising of the sun. The rooster thinks he deserves the credit. . . . Don Firth |
|
31 Dec 03 - 04:11 PM (#1083409) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,Frank Tinker, I read with interest your comments. "A non-violent philosophy is a nice thing to have, but it seldom accomplishes much in the real world, which is why we glorify the exceptional leaders who can succeed with it, e.g. Ghandi." The "real world" depends on which "reality" one subscribes to. Actually, when Ghandi or King used it, it worked. The problem is that it is often dismissed out of hand without grounds to support that hypothesis. "But years of sanctions and UN resolutions meant nothing to Saddam, a dictator (sorry, BBC, but that's what he was) who slaughtered thousands of his own people, made war on at least three nearby nations (Iran, Kuwait and Israel), permitted torture and rape as his sons' birthright, etc., etc. Yeah, they haven't found the WMD's, but they found a lot of mass graves. Is that somehow more acceptable?" These graves were considered acceptable when the Reagan and Bush administrations condoned his actions as a deterrant to Iran. "It's so easy to slam Bush, especially from across an ocean. But what would you have suggested, instead of the war, that could have removed Hussein from power? What exactly would have been a better idea that would have accomplished the same goal in the same time frame?" Number one, involving the World Community in the process rather than for the Bushies to go it alone. The inspections quite to the contrary to some propaganda were working. They were neutralizing his power. "Ask any parent. Threats of punishment carry no force unless the punishments occasionally occur." As a parent I disagree. Punitive responses may have an inverse affect to acceptable behavior. The spate of child abuse cases that we see today are evidence of this. The child grows up to be another molesters Actually, many children can become innured to punishment that is meted out with regularity. The way to handle child rearing has to do with opening options that include more than punishment. This was not done in Iraq, sorry to say. Frank |
|
31 Dec 03 - 04:41 PM (#1083439) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,Frank Castro is a military dictator but would have no vested interest in starting a nuclear war. It was a political move. Cuba could become dust if he were to launch such a missile. I believe he's a despot but not crazy. Who knows if he really had nuclear armaments in those delivery systems? I personally doubt it. It's like Iraq's WMD's. The idea behind Communism as practiced in the USSR or Cuba is more about enforcing that ideology on the rest of the world, not obliterating it. That latter doesn't make sense for a Communist ideologue. Frank |
|
31 Dec 03 - 04:49 PM (#1083446) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Little Hawk It is a mistake to confuse good judgement with either weakness or a blanket policy of non-violence. People commanding armies cannot afford to be non-violent, as that is not their job in life...they are (or should be) warriors. They cannot afford to be weak. But they need good judgement. It is not good judgement to launch an unnecessary war for spurious reasons in violation of international law and in defiance of a great majority of World opinion. Saddam did it when he attacked both Iran and Kuwait. America and Britain did it when they attacked Iraq recently. Stalin did it when he attacked Finland (in '39). Hitler did it when he attacked Poland. Mussolini did it when he attacked Ethiopia. Whether one gets away with this sort of thing or not (either in the short run or the long run) depends on many factors, but it is not good judgement nor is it good moral conduct, and to say so is not necessarily to endorse non-violence in all situations. A good warrior fights only when it is truly necessary and when it is unavoidable. He does not do so capriciously, out of the need to beat on his chest, impress people, steal what is not his, and cow the World. The World in the end outlasts such a warrior and swallows him. There is conflict in the World because of massive economic and social inequality and great oppression in many places, and there are weapons of mass destruction in the World because huge aggressive powers like the USA, Russia, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain invented them, funded them, built them, sold them and used them. In a situation where the big players create monstrous things, the small players will soon learn to imitate them, just as children learn from their parents...for better or for worse. - LH |
|
31 Dec 03 - 05:41 PM (#1083486) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: kendall What could we have done as an alternative to invading Iraq? How about we demand that Saddam return all those W's M.D. that we loaned him under the Reagan administration? He was supposed to use them on Iran, not his own people, or us. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 05:59 PM (#1083507) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Little Hawk There were many, many alternatives, and they've been discussed over and over again on this forum. Iraq was already a country which had lost most of its fighting power and its economic strength and 3/4 of its own airspace for over ten years, an almost unprecedented situation in history. It was crippled, isolated, and effectively incapable of defending itself against attack by a major power. It's WMD's were mostly gone by shortly after '91. The USA attacked Iraq not because of any actual need, not on behalf of Iraquis themselves, not in self-defence, but for direct gain for the USA and the Bush administration...according to how they saw it. How can there be "no alternative" to unprovoked aggression? I'm sure Hitler felt there was no alternative to the attack on Poland (since he risked...and got...a major war in Europe by doing it). He must have felt that there was no alternative. He was dead wrong. There are always any number of alternatives to aggression. - LH |
|
05 Jan 04 - 08:02 AM (#1086319) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Teribus Little Hawk, What has America gained in Iraq? What did it think it would gain? Hitler's mission, as perceived by him, was the reunification of Germany and the defeat, by conquest, of soviet communism. He knew full well that in attacking Poland to regain the territories ceded to Poland under the Treaty of Versailles in order to join East Prussia to Germany, he risked war with Britain and France. He had already bought off Russia in the short term. He, along with the German Chiefs of Staff, thought that Germany would win that war. He was wrong, but in the German analysis of the situation there was no alternative, Poland would not give up that territory (which was German) regardless of any inducement the government of the Third Reich might have offered. The likelyhood of Cuba firing missiles at targets in the US was nil, as those missiles and their payloads would at no time have been in their (Cuban) control. They were Soviet missiles, Soviet warheads, maintained and operated by Soviet troops. The Cuban missile crisis showed the need for second strike capability to remove the threat of pre-emptive strike by either party during the "cold war". In 1962 Soviet submarines posed little threat, up to 1964 Soviet submarines were referred to as "Coffee-Grinders" - you literally could hear them from miles away. In 1964 the USSR crash stopped their submarine building programme and concentrated for the next four years on oceanographic research and espionage. In 1968 they restarted the build up of their submarine fleet, the subs build after 1968 were much quieter (not as quiet as US boats) and they knew better than anyone else where to hide them. Through successive treaties and agreements, nuclear disarmament was well on course, up until the time India and Pakistan tested their own build nukes and delivery systems. Direct threat to the world caused by a Taliban inspired take-over of Pakistan - insignificant, range of delivery systems takes those missiles as far as the Indian capitol, that is as far as they ever had to fly. Indirect threat within the same scenario - potentially massive. |
|
05 Jan 04 - 11:27 AM (#1086441) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Little Hawk I think your summary of the German motives for attacking Poland is entirely accurate, teribus. It was, in any case, a reckless and bad decision, but I understand the rationale behind it all right. Hitler took a gamble. He figured that Britain and France would make angry noises but not go to war over Poland. He was wrong. And so, he got a war in the West that he would rather have avoided, since his real objective was the destruction of the Soviet Union and the colonization of much of their land and resources. You ask "What has America gained in Iraq?" Darned if I know! I suppose we might better ask that of George Bush and Karl Rove...I'm sure they could come up with some kind of answer. "What did it (America) think it would gain?" I can only speculate...a military victory and a political coup which would strengthen the Bush administration's position at home and abroad? Direct control of some valuable oil fields? A base for future Middle East operations aimed at...Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Al Queda? The nourishment of voter support for the Bush administration by waving the flag and creating a crisis? Stimulation of military spending to boost the economy? Elimination of a dangerous foreign government run by a former employee who went bad? I don't know. What do you think America (meaning the Bush administration) thought it would gain? Governments certainly do not launch overt wars of aggression unless they think they are going to gain something out of it. - LH |
|
05 Jan 04 - 12:21 PM (#1086485) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Teribus Little Hawk statements made in your two posts, 31 Dec 03 - 05:59 PM, where you state: "The USA attacked Iraq not because of any actual need, not on behalf of Iraquis themselves, not in self-defence, but for direct gain for the USA and the Bush administration...according to how they saw it." and 05 Jan 04 - 11:27 AM, where you state: "You ask "What has America gained in Iraq?" Darned if I know!" Which is it? In turn you asked me what I thought the US might think they would gain. 1. Closure and compliance by Iraq of all outstanding terms and conditions of UN Security Council Resolutions. 2. Removal of a regime that advocated the destruction of the State of Israel and who pursued that aim by supporting terrorist groups. 3. Establishment of a representative and democractically elected government in Iraq. The sovereignty of that state within existing boundaries being guaranteed by the USA All the above enhance the prospects for peace in the region if seen through to fruition. |
|
05 Jan 04 - 07:05 PM (#1086698) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: Little Hawk I said "direct gain....according to how they saw it". I don't actually know how they saw it. I can only guess... I have no way of knowing for sure what they were really thinking when they launched that war. Neither do I know what they're really thinking now. I just know what the News tells me, and I take that with a grain of salt. - LH |
|
17 Mar 04 - 09:26 PM (#1139630) Subject: RE: BS: JFK may have saved the world? From: GUEST,Jasper For the record the UN was very involved in the cuban missile crisis. I can remember adlai stevenson showing the smoking gun to the world community. Just off the top of my head I believe their were back channel negociations that involved UN personnel. IN fact I believe that is one of the dialogues that finally succeded in resolving the standoff. Look it up. I would but I am too lazy right this minute. Jasper |