posted
You guys realize that for the last 20 years we have had either a Bush or a Clinton for president? Frankly, I'm not a fan of any of the three of them. Or their families.
I think that is one of the biggest problems in American politics today is for the head guy we've had the families just reversing now for quite a while. That might be the biggest reason why I'm against Hilary in '08. I think we need some new blood.
posted
Do you realize your first sentence is in fact a question not a statement?
But in answer to your question, yes I am aware of that. I've heard that fact mentioned multiple times.
I do not oppose Hillary Clinton purely because of her relationship to Bill. Her record as first lady and a state senator by itself has persuaded me not to vote for her. Teddy Roosevelt was distantly related to FDR and both were wonderful presidents. JKF was a good president and I am of the opinion that Robert Kennedy would have been an upstanding president.
Dynasties are not intrinsically bad. People in power can often groom family members to succeed them and it CAN work just fine. It is only when somebody obtains a position of power solely on their name when they themselves are totally inept.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most presidential scholars think JFK was in fact a very average president, and FDR was a bit of a tyrant. I do think Robert Kennedy would have done a better job than Nixon did, probably.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, whenever anyone mentions WW2 (and inevitably FDR) or the great depression (and inevitably FDR), they always talk about how he is one of the greatest presidents of all time. I end up saying "Yeah, he wasn't bad... but he was a effectively a tyrant." Then they treat me like I am an idiot, who knows nothing of history. Oh well.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Name a few good things that president Kennedy ever did. You know, other than being young and good looking and inspirational, and dying tragically young. Talk about actual accomplishments.
-o-
Do you realize we could continue to be ruled by Bushes and Clintons for another sixteen years--not too unrealistically?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeb's daughter was/is a crack addict. That's a little harder to cover up than a little underage drinking by the twins, don't you think?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
According to Bush's sister-in-law, Bush himself was a cocaine user. And he was arrested for DUI.
And while Noelle was a drug addict, what she was actually arrested for, if memory serves, was abusing prescription drugs, not crack.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus: His management of the cuban missile crisis very likely saved us from a nuclear war. It's a good thing he went against his own judgement and trusted in his secretary of defense who understood the situation better and could make a better call.
I don't have time to look up other examples but that incident in of itself is HUGE.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no missile crisis. There were no missiles on those ships at all, according to what I've read.
"According to Bush's sister-in-law, Bush himself was a cocaine user. And he was arrested for DUI.
And while Noelle was a drug addict, what she was actually arrested for, if memory serves, was abusing prescription drugs, not crack."
She has been in rehab several times, right? Although I'm still a little amazed that an admitted coke user can be a successful Republican candidate. However, there is most definitely a difference between occasional recreational use, and multiple trips to rehab. That's my thought.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
His management of the Cuban Missile Crisis was atrocious. He made a promise that he did not have the right to make--essentially tying up the US's future foreign policy in perpetuity--in exchange for what? What did he get in return, exactly? Were US or UN inspectors able to verify that any missiles present on Cuba were removed? Did they get to search for them, like we did with Iraq? But he essentially gave the USSR a stronghold 90 miles away from US territory. Nice.
No, his managing of the Cuban Missile Crisis is a prime example of what an awful president Kennedy was.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's wild, steven. So you can say any unsupportable thing you want, and if anyone questions you, it's a trick? Awesome. I should have tried that in school.
I find that to be silly and a bit cheap.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't find anything, because you and I both know there's nothing to find, because you're making it up. Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm at it, I'll try to find proof of Santa Claus, or evidence that you have ever dealt with anyone in good faith. Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven: The missiles were already in Cuba with more missiles possibly being shipped from Russia, hence the naval blockade.
Icarus: What promise are you talking about? Are you doubting the missiles were removed from Cuba afterwards? I don't understand your objection to the administrations response to the cuban missile crisis.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, Kennedy promised that the US would never invade Cuba to depose the communist government. And in exchange for this, Kennedy received nothing but assurances that the missiles were removed. Neither UN nor US inspectors ever got to search for these missiles in Cuba.
Treaties are generally ratified by Congress, no? Kennedy made a man-to-man treaty, binding future presidents, that was never ratified by Congress.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, this is a legitimate question: Do you understand that there is a difference between saying something which is supportable, meaning it can be verified in any one of a number of different ways, and saying something which is unsupportable, meaning it cannot be verified?
If so, do you understand why saying "Most presidential scholars think JFK was in fact a very average president, and FDR was a bit of a tyrant" seems to fall into the latter category, whereas "The missiles were already in Cuba with more missiles possibly being shipped from Russia, hence the naval blockade" seems to fall into the former?
If you disagree that "Most presidential scholars think JFK was in fact a very average president, and FDR was a bit of a tyrant" falls into the latter category, can you offer anything -- anything at all -- to support that statement?
Can you think of any reason why I might ask for such support, other than an unwillingness on my part to do the research?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Can you think of any reason why I might ask for such support, other than an unwillingness on my part to do the research?"
From what I understand, there were no actual missiles on the ships that Kennedy was blockading. This is fairly recent information, seeing as how the only people who would know that were Soviet military/government/KGB. I think I read it about 4 years ago. There's no way I'm going to spend the 30 minutes Googling to find it.
If it's presidential scholars we're talking about, one of the best, from my point of view, is my best friend Trevor, who has spent years studying the Presidents' lives and work. He is also a political operative and teaches college courses in politics and political geography, etc. He's actually not impressed with any president we have, (boy's a little picky) but Kennedy is not on his short list of the better ones. Also, I've read independently (yes I'm too lazy to Google) that most presidential scholars think Kennedy was pretty average. I also have to say I think that getting yourself shot and killed over your policies is probably something we want to not have in a president. Not that I blame the individual, entirely. The issues that Kennedy dealt with were ticklish, to say the least. However...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The missiles were certainly in place, but whether or not the nuclear warheads were actually delivered to Cuba is not clear. As Raymond Garthoff writes on page 42 in his revised edition of Reflections on the Cuban Missile Crisis, "...I now believe that probably twenty nuclear warheads were in Cuba, although probably not at the missile launch complexes. Nonetheless, there remains a possibility that no nuclear warheads ever reached Cuba"
quote:Name a few good things that president Kennedy ever did.
The peace corps, moon shot, and gave us a new way to talk about foreign policy and American citizenship. Not bad.
Some people think history is determined by large scale forces, independent of the person in power. I think it's a matter of free will, political courage and initiative. I think that if Kennedy were President in 2000, we'd be green by 2010, to say the least. The office of President of the United States is only partially about policy, I think it's more about ethic, character, and insight. Kennedy had his flaws, personal and political, but the guy started the Peace Corps on the strength of a speech, a speech. That's awesome. He made Americans want to be better people. That's a better legacy than any tax bill or executive order.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's like saying Jesus or Socrates didn't do anything because they died, or that King, Malcolm X, and Lincoln were ineffectual because they were assassinated.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were talking about Presidents, not religious leaders. As far as Lincoln goes? Do not get me started on the burning of Atlanta. Do not. I am serious. That's one of the two main reasons Booth shot him.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, how do you think you would respond to a situation in which you were speaking to someone, and he or she said something that seemed to you to be obviously wrong? UFO's had landed in Bridesbury, say -- and upon asking where he or she had received this information, they responded that their best friend Trevor was an expert on the subject. Unable to offer any further evidence, this person remained steadfast in their conviction that UFO's had landed in Bridesbury. Would you take this person seriously?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not interested in doing the Googling. I think that if you are invested enough, you can do it. Further abuse from you is going to lead to me being less willing to help, not more, my friend.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not interested in doing the Googling. I think that if you are invested enough, you can do it. Further abuse from you is going to lead to me being less willing to help, not more, my friend.
Invested? Abuse? Help? ...How do you think it would be helping me, exactly, to simply provide an intellectually honest response? What harm do you suppose it's causing me that you will not?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We were talking about Presidents, not religious leaders. As far as Lincoln goes? Do not get me started on the burning of Atlanta. Do not. I am serious. That's one of the two main reasons Booth shot him.
Booth shot Lincoln because Booth was a spiteful coward, strong primarily in his support for the Confederacy.
Well, strong from a distance, anyway; too chicken#$@! to actually fight for the Confederacy beyond sneaking up behind a guy after the war was lost and shoot him in the back of the head.
Or do you fantasize that had Sherman not rode through the South, pillaging and destroying (and winning), Booth would not have murdered Lincoln?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
16 more years of Bushes and Clintons? I don't see it. I'm going to assume you mean Jeb and Chelsea?
Both are extreme longshots. Chelsea has zero experience being in any sort of government office. I don't care who your connections are, unless you are the most charismatic intelligent awe inspiring figure ever known to this country, you won't be elected just on name recognition alone with ZERO experience at all. Look at the hits Obama is taking and he's held an office of some sort for years.
And I've heard a lot of talk about Jeb. He's said he won't run I think, and beyond that, I saw some polling data on him awhile back, and the general consensus is very bad. I don't think he's at all electable.
Unless you just meant eight of Hillary and eight of Jeb and then four of...whatever. It's hard to say, Hillary's primary success is far from clinched, like it seemed it might be a few months ago. She's in a dead heat with Edwards and Obama in Iowa, and holds a narrow lead in NH. Her lead is bigger in Nevada, and for that matter, every other non-early voting state except like Idaho and North Carolina (and I think Mississippi), but for some stupid reason the early voting states can make all of that meaningless with poor and strong showings.
I think if Hillary wins, it'll be eight more years, and then that's it for both families, unless Billy Bush runs in 10 years And if she does a good job, who really cares about her last name? She isn't her husband, GWB wasn't his father. And furthermore, we were dumb enough to elect him! Dynasty in and of itself isn't good enough not to vote for someone, they have to have bad ideas and be bad candidates.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recently released Soviet-era documents [post 2000] support that not only were there nuclear warheads in Cuba, tactical nuke warheads were there on short-range-missiles and command and control was released to local commanders to repel an American invasion. Any invasion would have been suicide, by far the worst debacle in US military history. Thank God President Kennedy and his advisers chose the middle path of blockade.
One thing presidential historians are fairly unanimous about: we came closer to beginning WWIII then than any other time.
In the spirit of this thread, do your own damn googling!
posted
OK, after looking at Icarus' link to the wikipedia on the Cuban Missile Crisis, it seems they definitely had tactical nukes, the firing authority appears unclear.
quote: In early 1992 it was confirmed that key Soviet forces in Cuba had, by the time the crisis broke, received tactical nuclear warheads for their artillery rockets and IL-28 bombers [2], though General Anatoly Gribkov, part of the Soviet staff responsible for the operation, stated that the local Soviet commander, General Issa Pliyev, had predelegated authority to use them if the U.S. had mounted a full-scale invasion of Cuba. Gribkov misspoke: the Kremlin's authorization remained unsigned and undelivered.[3] (Other accounts show that Pliyev was given permission to use tactical nuclear warheads but only in the most extreme case of an U.S. invasion during which contact with Moscow is lost. However when U.S. forces seemed to be readying for an attack (after the U-2 photos, but before Kennedy's television address), Khrushchev rescinded his earlier permission for Pliyev to use the tactical nuclear weapons, even under the most extreme conditions.)
posted
JFK is one of the few Democrats I actually like. I mean he actually did, or came close to doing, what Republicans often say they will do. That includes a positive vision of the U.S., fought Communism (mixed results), fought crime with the help of his brother, had actually served in the military, and generally (from what little I know) had good economic policy. Some of his social policies I have a little harder time with, but they at least felt sincere. Personal problems aside, he is the ONLY Democrat President I would have ever voted for a second term. I hesitate to say first term because I just don't trust Democrats.
Sadly, the Democrat Party would never vote for the likes of him again. Just look at his youngest brother who is a complete liberal partisan hack. It saddens me that he was the one to survive.
Oh, and FDR was a Tyrant that consistantly over reached his authority. Although, it is arguable if we needed such a Tyrant to save the U.S. from depression and WWII. On the other hand, LBJ was a Tyrant that bloated the Government to the breaking point. Frankly, if I was a conspiracy believer I would say that LBJ had JFK killed so that he could be in office. I wouldn't put it past the slimeball.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: What's your source, BB?
The Fog of War. It's a documentary about Robert McNamara.
Icarus: The US already had satellite and operative intel on the missiles. They could certainly track the missiles from the moment they first saw them. If the missiles had not been removed from Cuba we would have most likely known about it. The Cubans and Russian probably made a big show of dismantling the missiles so as to ease our fears.
Russia would have had nothing to gain by reneging on their commitment as they were convinced they could back out honorably and that the US was still capable of dealing unacceptable loses to the USSR even after a first attack.
edit:
Recent studies have indeed shown that the war heads WERE in Cuba and that had we not responded the way we did we probably would have had WWIII. Castro himself told McNamara that he had pleaded with the USSR to launch it's missiles and when McNamara pointed out that that would mean the obliteration of everyone in Cuba Castro admitted that he understood that and was willing to pay that price.
One Russian submarine captain Vadim Orlov was actually ordered to fire his nuclear tipped torpedoes in the event his hull was breached and we came extremely close to depth charging him. He came extremely close to making the call.
posted
Recent studies? How? Where? No American has had that kind of access to Cuba since the 1950s, is my understanding. I might be more likely to believe if it came from a former KGB or someone else on the Russian side who'd have been in a position to know. What's the source?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Recent studies? How? Where? No American has had that kind of access to Cuba since the 1950s, is my understanding. I might be more likely to believe if it came from a former KGB or someone else on the Russian side who'd have been in a position to know. What's the source?
I have to correct myself. The missiles were indeed in Cuba, but no warheads were found by our intelligence at the time. However it was the opinion of the intelligence community that getting a warhead into Cuba would be very easy (read 2nd to last paragraph if you don't wish to view the entire document.)
The exchange between McNamara and Castro is in McNamara's words and can be found in The Fog of War. You can also see Castro make similar remarks on the website I linked immediately above.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 16 more years of Bushes and Clintons? I don't see it. I'm going to assume you mean Jeb and Chelsea?
. . .
Unless you just meant eight of Hillary and eight of Jeb and then four of...whatever.
::scratches head::
Eight plus eight plus four is twenty, not sixteen.
I didn't say it was certain, anyway, just that it was possible, and not particularly farfetched.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Icarus: The US already had satellite and operative intel on the missiles. They could certainly track the missiles from the moment they first saw them. If the missiles had not been removed from Cuba we would have most likely known about it. The Cubans and Russian probably made a big show of dismantling the missiles so as to ease our fears.
I don't know what you base your certainty on. Just because the US had discovered the presence of some missiles certainly does not establish that the US possessed intel on the location of each and every missile in Cuba and the ability to rack their dismantling. Remember, the US discovered the missiles through U2 flyover, not some geostationary satellite hanging out over the island. The missiles were not under constant US surveillance.
The crisis was precipitated by the US in the first place, when the US put missiles aimed at the USSR in Turkey. An even trade would have had the US remove their missiles and the USSR removing theirs. But Kennedy gave the USSR something more: a promise that the US would not intervene militarily in Cuba. There was no such reciprocal promise from the USSR. So when it was all said and done, the USSR had something after the missile crisis that they did not have before: a stronghold 90 miles off of the US with a US promise never to intervene. The missile crisis was a victory for the USSR.
Beyond that, though, it is my understanding that Kennedy did not have the right to make the promise he made. That's not a tit-for-tat exchange of military concessions, it's essentially a treaty, and treaties need to be ratified by congress, don't they?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The President has constitutional authority to conduct our foreign policy, including making all the deals he wants; they are just no more binding than his own authority. He is also commander in chief, so for all practical purposes he is able to back that particular deal up (for himself, at least, and subsequent presidents would usually be wise to continue compliance). Congress could theoretically put him on the spot by declaring war on Cuba or somesuch, but that would be somewhat bizarre.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why Castro thought it so necessary to create a Communist state and/or try to station nukes in Cuba. Granted, the US misbehaved badly in Guatemala, but there's no evidence that I'm aware of that we'd have done the same or something like it in Cuba. Where was his head?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
