"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.

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.

"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.

"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

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.

"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.

On 10/21/11 9:45 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"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.



Threatening a way without starting one...
*Brinkmanship*

From wiki:

Brinkmanship (or brinksmanship) is the practice of pushing dangerous
events to the verge of disaster in order to achieve the most
advantageous outcome. It occurs in international politics, foreign
policy, labour relations, and (in contemporary settings) military
strategy involving the threatened use of nuclear weapons.

This maneuver of pushing a situation with the opponent to the brink
succeeds by forcing the opponent to back down and make concessions. This
might be achieved through diplomatic maneuvers by creating the
impression that one is willing to use extreme methods rather than
concede. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear force was often used
as such an escalating measure.

On 10/21/11 12:33 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:29:53 -0400, wrote:

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 problem with that scenario was that they still might have been
able to get a missile or two off before they were destroyed.

We did not understand at the time that some of these missiles were
ready to fire and that the people in Cuba had tactical control.

Kennedy made the right decision based upon what he knew at the time.

I remember his speech. It was a Monday night, and I was in the student
union for something or other, and saw Kennedy on the tube in the lounge.
I was a lowly freshman, taking 16 credit hours, and I was swamped with
studying I had to do and papers I had to write.

A year and a month later, and Kennedy was dead. What a time.

On 10/21/11 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:43:32 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 10/21/11 12:33 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:29:53 -0400, wrote:

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 problem with that scenario was that they still might have been
able to get a missile or two off before they were destroyed.

We did not understand at the time that some of these missiles were
ready to fire and that the people in Cuba had tactical control.

Kennedy made the right decision based upon what he knew at the time.

I remember his speech. It was a Monday night, and I was in the student
union for something or other, and saw Kennedy on the tube in the lounge.
I was a lowly freshman, taking 16 credit hours, and I was swamped with
studying I had to do and papers I had to write.

A year and a month later, and Kennedy was dead. What a time.

I watched it with my father who was in Naval intelligence at the time.
He said JFK was screwing up and really wanted my mom to take us all to
the mountains in southern Virginia. He went to work shortly after that
and did not come home for almost 2 weeks. He looked 10 years older
when he got home.

If JFK had not been assassinated, this legacy would have come out
differently. I think his chance for reelection was 50:50 at best. That
is why he was in Dallas in the first place. He was losing the south
and that used to be where the Democrats were.
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1960.html



Nice site, a keeper...thanks!

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:19:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



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

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.

Bush thought he was lying for the right reason.

Turns out he was wrong.