|
Too good to pass up...
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 Cuban missile problem was real. The Bush Administration lied us into Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those countries was involved in 9-11. |
Too good to pass up...
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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 Cuban missile problem was real. The Bush Administration lied us into Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those countries was involved in 9-11. ------------------------------------------------------------- That's your view and you have made it abundantly clear. I am not convinced that Bush knowingly lied at the time, but those that believe it in the Monday morning quarterbacking circles will never consider any other thoughts or opinions. I *do* believe that Bush came to realize later that the multi-nation intel was faulty with regard to the WMDs (he has admitted it) but at the time of making the decision to act, it was considered reliable. Only later did it become a partisan political issue with many in Congress who initially supported Bush turning against him and condemning him. Tough job, being POTUS ..... as our current one is learning. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/11 9:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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 Cuban missile problem was real. The Bush Administration lied us into Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those countries was involved in 9-11. ------------------------------------------------------------- That's your view and you have made it abundantly clear. I am not convinced that Bush knowingly lied at the time, but those that believe it in the Monday morning quarterbacking circles will never consider any other thoughts or opinions. I *do* believe that Bush came to realize later that the multi-nation intel was faulty with regard to the WMDs (he has admitted it) but at the time of making the decision to act, it was considered reliable. Only later did it become a partisan political issue with many in Congress who initially supported Bush turning against him and condemning him. Tough job, being POTUS ..... as our current one is learning. It is a tough job. My feeling about Bush, based upon many of his "decisions," is that he rarely thought things through and acted impulsively. These are both characteristics of a personality prone to substance abuse, which plagued him for many years. |
Too good to pass up...
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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. -------------------------------------------------- Harry, your comment above is sorta the point I am trying to make about Monday morning quarterbacks. If JFK had instead opted for some of his advisor's recommendations to bomb the missile sites (which according to historians he seriously considered) and: the operation had been successful and: Khrushchev had ordered the delivery ships home with their tails between their legs, he (JFK) would now be credited with making "the right decision". Eisboch |
Too good to pass up...
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 10/21/11 9:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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 Cuban missile problem was real. The Bush Administration lied us into Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those countries was involved in 9-11. ------------------------------------------------------------- That's your view and you have made it abundantly clear. I am not convinced that Bush knowingly lied at the time, but those that believe it in the Monday morning quarterbacking circles will never consider any other thoughts or opinions. I *do* believe that Bush came to realize later that the multi-nation intel was faulty with regard to the WMDs (he has admitted it) but at the time of making the decision to act, it was considered reliable. Only later did it become a partisan political issue with many in Congress who initially supported Bush turning against him and condemning him. Tough job, being POTUS ..... as our current one is learning. It is a tough job. My feeling about Bush, based upon many of his "decisions," is that he rarely thought things through and acted impulsively. These are both characteristics of a personality prone to substance abuse, which plagued him for many years. -------------------------------------------------------- Being nowhere near an expert in linking presidential decisions with substance abuse, I have no idea or opinion. I judge by what the actions are, what the reasons are and try to keep a somewhat logical, open mind about them. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/11 9:29 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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. -------------------------------------------------- Harry, your comment above is sorta the point I am trying to make about Monday morning quarterbacks. If JFK had instead opted for some of his advisor's recommendations to bomb the missile sites (which according to historians he seriously considered) and: the operation had been successful and: Khrushchev had ordered the delivery ships home with their tails between their legs, he (JFK) would now be credited with making "the right decision". Eisboch The right decision, which Kennedy made, was to not get into a shooting war with the Russians. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/2011 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. O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing. Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/2011 9:00 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/20/11 9:26 PM, wrote: On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:12:03 -0400, X ` wrote: In March, you Republicans said Obama didn't act quickly enough and with enough force in going after Gaddafi. Then when Obama acted, you said Obama acted too hastily, acted unconstitutionally and needed to be impeached. Today, you say Obama didn't act soon enough. Pobrecitos. You can't handle the fact that **** gets done nowadays. In 6 months, Libya went from status quo to Gaddafi dead, something at which Saint Ronny Raegan tried and failed. Osama bin Laden is dead, something Dubya couldn't do in 8 years. Now, with US and NATO assistance, the Libyan government has changed hands and Gaddafi is dead. The open question will be whether we are actually better off with him gone. As the Clinton people used to say about Saddam, we had Qdaffy "contained". (a lot more than Saddam) This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we damned near had WWIII over Cuba. This time it might be WWIII over Israel. 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. You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor and has blown the constitution all to hell... No, Bush isn't president now. He wasn't talking about Bush. |
Too good to pass up...
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 10/21/11 9:29 AM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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. -------------------------------------------------- Harry, your comment above is sorta the point I am trying to make about Monday morning quarterbacks. If JFK had instead opted for some of his advisor's recommendations to bomb the missile sites (which according to historians he seriously considered) and: the operation had been successful and: Khrushchev had ordered the delivery ships home with their tails between their legs, he (JFK) would now be credited with making "the right decision". Eisboch The right decision, which Kennedy made, was to not get into a shooting war with the Russians. ---------------------------------------------------------- Ah, come on. Kennedy threatened a shooting war by imposing the blockade. There's no purpose in a blockade if you don't intend to enforce it. It was a roll of the dice. Credit also has to be given to Khrushchev because he actually benefited more in the end with regard to our missile sites in Europe. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com