BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

JustWait

On 10/21/2011 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:04:04 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 10/21/11 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

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

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.

I was in my first year of college when the Cuban missile crisis took
place. Kennedy was smart enough to go for the blockade instead of
bombing the missile sites, which would have resulted in the deaths of a
lot of Russian personnel.

The question is why he pushed this into a crisis at all. If he had
just quietly agreed to pull the obsolete missiles out of Turkey the
whole mess would have been avoided. There would have never been any
missiles in Cuba and there is a whole lot better chance that we might
have been able to avoid the cluster **** that our Cuban policy has
been for the last 50 years. That is all he had to do to end the
"crisis" anyway. All of that bluster was just a dangerous show that
could have easily gone the other way.

BTW, talking about lies, the whole "missile gap" that prompted our
arms race with the Soviets was a lie and JFK knew it the day he walked
into the White House and got his intel briefing. That was what all of
those U2 flights were all about and why Eisenhower had the warning
about the "military industrial complex" in his exit speech.
Yet JFK escalated the arms buildup anyway..

The Cuban missile problem was real. The Bush Administration lied us into
Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those countries was involved in 9-11.

GW Bush was 15, was the missile crisis his fault then too? Why does
every conversation fall back to Bush?

Because you are conversing with a liar...