PDA

View Full Version : Beautiful, another Kennedy down the tubes


chagrin
05-05-2006, 02:35 PM
Bye Bye any hope for the Oval office:

http://www.foxnews.com


Patrick Kennedy admits he needs help.
Kennedy entering rehab after crash
Rep. Patrick Kennedy said Friday he is entering a drug rehabilitation program, following the car accident Thursday in which he slammed into a security barrier on Capitol Hill. "I simply do not remember getting out of bed or being pulled over by police... That is not how I want to live my life," he said. Kennedy added: "I know that I need help." Police are also investigating whether Kennedy received preferential teratment after the crash when he was not given a sobriety test.

Simplex3
05-05-2006, 02:37 PM
I've accepted that they'll never run out of money, but you'd think eventually they'd run out of sperm.

I wouldn't say the WH is out, though. If Killer can make the Senate and stay there this guy isn't washed up yet.

Bootlegged
05-05-2006, 02:38 PM
That family should put a cover up specialist on retainer.

Umm...I was wasted at 2:30 a.m. - I bet I can sell that it was ambien. Yeah, that sounds good. They'll buy that....then I'll check into rehab for sympathy. Cool. 1-2-3, break!

Cochise
05-05-2006, 02:43 PM
Big deal, I mean, it's not like his car was upside down in a pond and there was a coed drowning inside.

jAZ
05-05-2006, 03:20 PM
Clean up on aisle DC!

Amnorix
05-05-2006, 03:21 PM
What they should do is have an appointed driver for each and every one of them. The stupidity involved here is really quite incredible.

Frankie
05-05-2006, 03:22 PM
Bye Bye any hope for the Oval office:
I have never heard of Pat Kennedy as a future WH hopeful. You must have some inside info the rest of us don't. :rolleyes:

BTW, this is not the DC forum.

chagrin
05-05-2006, 03:27 PM
I have never heard of Pat Kennedy as a future WH hopeful. You must have some inside info the rest of us don't. :rolleyes:

BTW, this is not the DC forum.


Okay dude, this is news, not an invitation for you and the other terrorists to do your circle jerk around the nearest right winger. If you can't tell the difference you are beyond hope of any sort.

I posted it because it's news, not to debate his politics therefore it shouldn't have to be in the D.C. forum.

and BTW, this isn't your personal web page either...:rolleyes:

Frankie
05-05-2006, 04:09 PM
Okay dude, this is news, not an invitation for you and the other terrorists to do your circle jerk around the nearest right winger. If you can't tell the difference you are beyond hope of any sort.

I posted it because it's news, not to debate his politics therefore it shouldn't have to be in the D.C. forum.

and BTW, this isn't your personal web page either...:rolleyes:
It was news YESTERDAY! Though not much of one. You are a day late. It is no longer news. Just your feable attempt to start another one of those pattented CP RWNJ circle jerks about a non-issue while everything is going to shits about those you naively support. Up until your post here I didn't know that a "circle jerk" is the right you and the rest of the RWNJs here are born into. Sorry if I gave your paranoia a jolt, but I had no "circle jerk" in mind. You can now go back and play with your peepee.

picasso
05-05-2006, 04:17 PM
It was news YESTERDAY! Though not much of one. You are a day late. It is no longer news. Just your feable attempt to start another one of those pattented CP RWNJ circle jerks about a non-issue while everything is going to shits about those you naively support. Up until your post here I didn't know that a "circle jerk" is the right you and the rest of the RWNJs here are born into. Sorry if I gave your paranoia a jolt, but I had no "circle jerk" in mind. You can now go back and play with your peepee.

Amen!!!! STFU

BIG_DADDY
05-05-2006, 04:20 PM
It was news YESTERDAY! Though not much of one. You are a day late. It is no longer news. Just your feable attempt to start another one of those pattented CP RWNJ circle jerks about a non-issue while everything is going to shits about those you naively support. Up until your post here I didn't know that a "circle jerk" is the right you and the rest of the RWNJs here are born into. Sorry if I gave your paranoia a jolt, but I had no "circle jerk" in mind. You can now go back and play with your peepee.

peepee? You have been talkin about guys packages all day. What's your problem your boyfriend cheating on you again? It would seem so the way you act all angry. Who died and left you in charge anyway? Nobody wants to hear shit from the human shish kabob so why don't you STFU.

hawkchief
05-05-2006, 04:22 PM
Amen!!!! STFU


Funny how the libs want news that is damaging to them either removed or forgotten ASAP. BTW, the newws regarding the latest Kennedy family drunk going into rehab came out TODAY, not YESTERDAY.

vailpass
05-05-2006, 04:23 PM
It was news YESTERDAY! Though not much of one. You are a day late. It is no longer news. Just your feable attempt to start another one of those pattented CP RWNJ circle jerks about a non-issue while everything is going to shits about those you naively support. Up until your post here I didn't know that a "circle jerk" is the right you and the rest of the RWNJs here are born into. Sorry if I gave your paranoia a jolt, but I had no "circle jerk" in mind. You can now go back and play with your peepee.


Well I like hearing about it TODAY! If you don't want to hear it don't fricking read it! I thought with Goat Cheese being temporarly gone we would see a decrease in thread bitches. Apparently not.

As to the thread, here is my favorite line:
"Police are also investigating whether Kennedy received preferential teratment after the crash when he was not given a sobriety test."

Why is there a need for investigation? The brother wrecked his car for no apparent reason at 3:00 a.m.
If that was you or me the breathalizer would have been front and center first thing.

BIG_DADDY
05-05-2006, 04:25 PM
Clean up on aisle DC!

WOW look at this the self made jock millionaire has blessed us with his presence just in time to straighten everyone out. Good thing we got you policing things around here. Keep up the good work bro. :thumb:

CHIEF4EVER
05-05-2006, 04:33 PM
Soooooo......was anyone named Mary Jo involved or was this a solo Kennedy drunk incident? ROFL

Frankie
05-05-2006, 04:47 PM
Funny how the libs want news that is damaging to them either removed or forgotten ASAP.ROFL
The only thing more pathetic than an old RWNJ, is a n00b RWNJ. When did anyone say it needs to be removed? And why is this damaging to the libs? Some congressman has done something stupid and has enjoyed congressional immunity that, as it turns out runs prevelant in Washington. Chagrin delighted in the fact that the guy was named Kennedy and naively attached a non-existant WH future to it. That's the extent of it. You guys haven't recovered from the Tom DeLay episode and the fact that Rove might be next. Just grabbing at straws.

BTW, the newws regarding the latest Kennedy family drunk going into rehab came out TODAY, not YESTERDAY.
I leave the childish "No it wasn't,... yes it was" to you. But just because you only heard it TODAY does not mean it didn't come out YESTERDAY. :shake: The only thing more pathetic than an uninformed RWNJ, is one who is proud to be an uninformed RWNJ.

vailpass
05-05-2006, 04:56 PM
I leave the childish "No it wasn't,... yes it was" to you. But just because you only heard it TODAY does not mean it didn't come out YESTERDAY. :shake: The only thing more pathetic than an uninformed RWNJ, is one who is proud to be an uninformed RWNJ.

The only thing worse than a psuedo condescending douchebag is a psuedo condescending douchebag who is dead wrong. Below is a copy of TODAY's CNN front page. Note the words "breaking news" and "developing story".

Friday, May 05 2006

BREAKING NEWS

Kennedy entering rehab
Rep. Patrick Kennedy said Friday he is entering a drug rehabilitation program, following a car accident Thursday in which he slammed into a Capitol Hill security barrier. "I simply do not remember getting out of bed or being pulled over by police... That is not how I want to live my life," he said. Kennedy added: "I know that I need help." Capitol Police said Friday an initial probe showed supervisors -- who did not give Kennedy a sobriety test at the crash scene -- didn't handle the accident correctly.

DEVELOPING STORY


Kennedy admits addiction and depression


www.cnn.com

Simplex3
05-05-2006, 04:57 PM
Frankie, just crawl back over to DC and leave the rest of us alone. You'll notice the thread didn't belong in DC until you showed up.

vailpass
05-05-2006, 05:00 PM
Frankie, just crawl back over to DC and leave the rest of us alone. You'll notice the thread didn't belong in DC until you showed up.

:clap:
Below is Ted Kennedy's defense of his younger family member.

stevieray
05-05-2006, 05:02 PM
ROFL
The only thing more pathetic than an old RWNJ, is a n00b RWNJ. .

but only certain religous bigotry is ok?

BIG_DADDY
05-05-2006, 05:06 PM
Frankie, just crawl back over to DC and leave the rest of us alone. You'll notice the thread didn't belong in DC until you showed up.

Be careful dude. He likes talking to people about how they touch their package today.

Frankie
05-05-2006, 05:10 PM
Vailpass,
Once again I will point out that the news of his "accident" was all over CNN, MSNBC, Network News services and certainly FOX "News."And once again I point out Chagrin's topic:

"Beautiful, another Kennedy down the tubes." followed by "Bye Bye any hope for the Oval office:"

I simply pointed out the "so what" nature of this thread and the fact that it belongs to the DC forum.

Frankie
05-05-2006, 05:12 PM
but only certain religous bigotry is ok?
Huh?

Reaching a bit here, are we? :lame:

BIG_DADDY
05-05-2006, 05:13 PM
Vailpass,
Once again I will point out that the news of his "accident" was all over CNN, MSNBC, Network News services and certainly FOX "News."And once again I point out Chagrin's topic:

"Beautiful, another Kennedy down the tubes." followed by "Bye Bye any hope for the Oval office:"

I simply pointed out the "so what" nature of this thread and the fact that it belongs to the DC forum.

Nobody wants to hear the human shish kabob try and talk smack.

vailpass
05-05-2006, 05:15 PM
Nobody wants to hear the human shish kabob try and talk smack.
ROFL

stevieray
05-05-2006, 05:19 PM
Huh?

Reaching a bit here, are we? :lame:

You mean like thinking the term noob renders an opinion invalid??

Frankie
05-05-2006, 05:22 PM
ROFL
And there I present to you:
(Drumroll please)

"THE RWNJ CIRCLE JERK!!!"

ROFL
You guys are funny when you run around and crap all over your own attempted "point."

Chief Henry
05-05-2006, 05:24 PM
Nobody wants to hear the human shish kabob try and talk smack.
ROFL

Frankie
05-05-2006, 05:24 PM
You mean like thinking the term noob renders an opinion invalid??
And the connection between this and my "religious bigotry" is..... (?)

alanm
05-05-2006, 05:24 PM
It was news YESTERDAY! Though not much of one. You are a day late. It is no longer news. Just your feable attempt to start another one of those pattented CP RWNJ circle jerks about a non-issue while everything is going to shits about those you naively support. Up until your post here I didn't know that a "circle jerk" is the right you and the rest of the RWNJs here are born into. Sorry if I gave your paranoia a jolt, but I had no "circle jerk" in mind. You can now go back and play with your peepee.
Sorry Frankie, If it had been any Republican you guys over in DC would have had it over 100 posts by now and calling for impeachment.
"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." :)

CHIEF4EVER
05-05-2006, 05:25 PM
Ted: "Now ehhhh Son, dohn't go tehllin them cops ehnything. And Dooooon't blow in that theah ehhhh tube. Just tell em the same thing I told em when i drowned my ehhhh mistress on that theah ehhhh Chappaquiddick bridge. You were ehhh *hic* late for a vote." ROFL

stevieray
05-05-2006, 05:26 PM
And the connection between this and my "religious bigotry" is..... (?)

they say admitting it is the first step. ;)

Frankie
05-05-2006, 05:35 PM
Sorry Frankie, If it had been any Republican you guys over in DC would have had it over 100 posts by now and calling for impeachment.
"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." :)
I don't agree. I really think episodes like the Cheney (alleged) alcohol related shooting of someone that was conveniently hidden for 24 hours and Carl Rove's betraying of classified info did not get the coverage here that they deserve. I agree with the notion that we Dems don't have the blood lust the righties have, and it even shows here.

Thanks, BTW, for your civil post.

Frankie
05-05-2006, 05:39 PM
they say admitting it is the first step. ;)
I really should have said "my alleged Religious Bigotry." I was just too lazy to go back and fix it and you caught me. Anyway, I said it to you on another thread. If you want to have a civil discussion about it let's not hijack an unrelated thread.

BIG_DADDY
05-05-2006, 05:42 PM
I really should have said "my alleged Religious Bigotry." I was just too lazy to go back and fix it and you caught me. Anyway, I said it to you on another thread. If you want to have a civil discussion about it let's not hijack an unrelated thread.

Hey dude don't get stuck in this thread I just came up with a good rendition of your "Here's a story" thread you posted. Go check it out.

alanm
05-05-2006, 05:42 PM
I don't agree. I really think episodes like the Cheney (alleged) alcohol related shooting of someone that was conveniently hidden for 24 hours and Carl Rove's betraying of classified info did not get the coverage here that they deserve. I agree with the notion that we Dems don't have the blood lust the righties have, and it even shows here.

Thanks, BTW, for your civil post.
Sorry Frankie, we're all waiting for a Dem to hit the WH. After the Republicans are done there will be nothing left of him or her but bone fragments and gristle. :)

Bwana
05-05-2006, 05:47 PM
The Kennedy's, nice family. :shake: It's ok Patrick, Mommy and Daddy will fix everything, we're not like most people, we have lots of money and will make it all go away. Those bad reporters will leave soon as well little fella.

Frankie
05-05-2006, 05:52 PM
The Kennedy's, nice family. :shake: It's ok Patrick, Mommy and Daddy will fix everything, we're not like most people, we have lots of money and will make it all go away. Those bad reporters will leave soon as well little fella.
Oh come one Bwana. Do you really think the Kennedys have more clout than the Bushes (and the scary coalition behind them)?

Simplex3
05-05-2006, 06:03 PM
I don't agree. I really think episodes like the Cheney (alleged) alcohol related shooting of someone that was conveniently hidden for 24 hours and Carl Rove's betraying of classified info did not get the coverage here that they deserve. I agree with the notion that we Dems don't have the blood lust the righties have, and it even shows here.

Thanks, BTW, for your civil post.
Go. The. F**k. Away.

Frankie
05-05-2006, 06:11 PM
Go. The. F**k. Away.
It's amazing how when a RWNJ cannot compete in wit and reason their hate remains their only weapon. I'm loving this. ROFL

Bwana
05-05-2006, 06:18 PM
Oh come one Bwana. Do you really think the Kennedys have more clout than the Bushes (and the scary coalition behind them)?I'm sure it would be about the same and both familys could likely damn near get away with murder. But today it's young Pat who has his apple bag in the wringer. :)

Frankie
05-05-2006, 06:19 PM
I'm sure it would be about the same and both familys could likely damn near get away with murder. But today it's young Pat who has his apple bag in the wringer. :)
Cool. :)

Simplex3
05-05-2006, 07:05 PM
Go. The. F**k. Away.

05-05-2006 06:12 PM, Frankie: Hatred instead of reasoning? Deserves a neg.

Man, you are one sorry POS. I didn't call you an a**hole, I didn't mention how you like to smoke pole, I didn't even engage you in a conversation. I simply told you that this thread wasn't in DC and that it wouldn't need to be if you would GO THE F**K AWAY.

For the record, I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you, I was like you no more than a year ago. I figured out a way to make my life not suck, though. You should work on that. Or GO THE F**K BACK OVER TO DC. You know, and leave the rest of us alone.

Frankie
05-05-2006, 07:10 PM
Man, you are one sorry POS. I didn't call you an a**hole, I didn't mention how you like to smoke pole, I didn't even engage you in a conversation. I simply told you that this thread wasn't in DC and that it wouldn't need to be if you would GO THE F**K AWAY.

For the record, I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you, I was like you no more than a year ago. I figured out a way to make my life not suck, though. You should work on that. Or GO THE F**K BACK OVER TO DC. You know, and leave the rest of us alone.
ROFL ROFL ROFL
I'm trying to decide whether this is funnier or two seasons worth of Monty Python episodes.
ROFL ROFL ROFL

jAZ
05-05-2006, 07:10 PM
Why exactly shouldn't this thread have been started in the DC? Everything that's posted there is "news". It's political news, and people decided to move those threads into the DC years ago.

This is clearly a political news story. There is no doubt about it. Hell, the very first comment by the poster was commentary about the political ambitions of this guy.

No one can say with a straight face that this didn't belong in the DC from the get go. And if somehow they have enough cognitive dissonance to pull that off, then we need to revisit the role of the DC.

Frankie
05-05-2006, 07:11 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL
I'm trying to decide whether this is funnier or two seasons worth of Monty Python episodes.
ROFL ROFL ROFL
BTW. Should I go back and check for your mandatory "getting even" neg rep? ROFL

Frankie
05-05-2006, 07:16 PM
Why exactly shouldn't this thread have been started in the DC? Everything that's posted there is "news". It's political news, and people decided to move those threads into the DC years ago.

This is clearly a political news story. There is no doubt about it. Hell, the very first comment by the poster was commentary about the political ambitions of this guy.

No one can say with a straight face that this didn't belong in the DC from the get go. And if somehow they have enough cognitive dissonance to pull that off, then we need to revisit the role of the DC.
What's this jAZ? Trying to subvert the nutjobs with reason and logic? Shame on you. We need them for their entertainment value.

Reaper16
05-05-2006, 07:29 PM
There's only one reason to take a lot of Ambien...

Loki
05-05-2006, 07:37 PM
...
Some congressman has done something stupid and has enjoyed congressional immunity that, as it turns out runs prevelant in Washington
...

you mean runs prevalent in the kennedy family... right?

why these a$$holes keep getting re-elected is beyond me.

Adept Havelock
05-05-2006, 08:41 PM
you mean runs prevalent in the kennedy family... right?

why these a$$holes keep getting re-elected is beyond me.Same reason as those a$$holes in the Bush clan.

Money, power, connections, and the ability to tap the extremists of their party. :shrug:

banyon
05-05-2006, 09:06 PM
Why exactly shouldn't this thread have been started in the DC? Everything that's posted there is "news". It's political news, and people decided to move those threads into the DC years ago.

This is clearly a political news story. There is no doubt about it. Hell, the very first comment by the poster was commentary about the political ambitions of this guy.

No one can say with a straight face that this didn't belong in the DC from the get go. And if somehow they have enough cognitive dissonance to pull that off, then we need to revisit the role of the DC.


Well, I see no one else had an argument for this. It's because you, sir, are 100% absof***inglutely correct.

patteeu
05-05-2006, 09:28 PM
Well, I see no one else had an argument for this. It's because you, sir, are 100% absof***inglutely correct.

Yes he is.

memyselfI
05-05-2006, 09:31 PM
Good riddance...

now he and Rush can revel in their new membership in the 'wealthy and white drug addicts treated better than Joe Blow club.'

stevieray
05-05-2006, 09:39 PM
Good riddance...

now he and Rush can revel in their new membership in the 'wealthy and white drug addicts treated better than Joe Blow club.'

wow, is denise's new gig being racist?

Loki
05-05-2006, 11:37 PM
Same reason as those a$$holes in the Bush clan.

Money, power, connections, and the ability to tap the extremists of their party. :shrug:

i understand your point, but the kennedy clan certainly take the cake with
some of their exploits:
murder, rape, sex with underage girls, boozin', druggin' etc etc...

skakle seems to be the only one who served any time for what he did.
:shake:

Loki
05-05-2006, 11:39 PM
wow, is denise's new gig being racist?

apparently so.

rather hypocritical if you ask me.

Frankie
05-06-2006, 12:08 AM
you mean runs prevalent in the kennedy family... right?

why these a$$holes keep getting re-elected is beyond me.
Obviously you didn't watch experts on the subject on any of the big 3 cable news services. Or should I say 2+"1." Those points of information from no less than Scarborough a former Republican congressman himself. No, as much as you want to drag the Kennedys in excrement while looking away from DeLays of this world, this particular priviledge of protection runs for all congressmen/women. As for your blind hatred of the Kennedys, for all their faults, almost to the man they are responsible for at least some good in the society. Can you say that about Tom Delay? How about Dick Cheney? Should I stop while you are behind? :rolleyes:

Loki
05-06-2006, 01:12 AM
Obviously you didn't watch experts on the subject on any of the big 3 cable news services. Or should I say 2+"1." Those points of information from no less than Scarborough a former Republican congressman himself. No, as much as you want to drag the Kennedys in excrement while looking away from DeLays of this world, this particular priviledge of protection runs for all congressmen/women. As for your blind hatred of the Kennedys, for all their faults, almost to the man they are responsible for at least some good in the society. Can you say that about Tom Delay? How about Dick Cheney? Should I stop while you are behind? :rolleyes:

yeah you should really stop.

were you a cabana-boy at the kennedy compound or something?
what a fruit.
:thailor:

Frankie
05-06-2006, 01:18 AM
yeah you should really stop.

were you a cabana-boy at the kennedy compound or something?
what a fruit.
:thailor:
No, now here's my question: Where you a scorned personal boy to one of them? You harbor such blind anger, you know. :hmmm:

redbrian
05-06-2006, 01:44 PM
You have just got to love the Kennedyís; they are the epitome of the ultra rich do gooder liberal.

They lord over the lowly masses preaching about injustice and the evils that the satanic capitalist are doing to the planet and the worlds peoples.

Donít you just love how they whine for sympathy, because itís a disease man, itís not my fault Iím a (insert affliction of the day).

They are also proud members of NIMBY, seems a developer wants to put some clean energy wind turbines on the Nantucket Bay, well the Kennedyís want no part of that as it will wreck their pristine view.

JFK proof if you want to go down in history well, die young and leave a good looking widow.

Frankie
05-06-2006, 03:24 PM
You have just got to love the Kennedyís; they are the epitome of the ultra rich do gooder liberal.

They lord over the lowly masses preaching about injustice and the evils that the satanic capitalist are doing to the planet and the worlds peoples.

Donít you just love how they whine for sympathy, because itís a disease man, itís not my fault Iím a (insert affliction of the day).

They are also proud members of NIMBY, seems a developer wants to put some clean energy wind turbines on the Nantucket Bay, well the Kennedyís want no part of that as it will wreck their pristine view.

JFK proof if you want to go down in history well, die young and leave a good looking widow.
Yeah, and they are Satan worshipers and I'm pretty sure one of them is the anti-Christ. I don't know which one yet, but the world should be preparing for the Armageddon. All due to the Kennedys.

They also sleep with the Saudis and the big oil companies at the cost of our living and conduct useless personal wars at the cost of our sons/daughters/brothers/sisters' lives. Oh, ... wait a minute.... :hmmm:

go bowe
05-06-2006, 03:29 PM
i see your point frankie, but i think jfk (whom i worship) expanded on the military involvement in vietnam which had been begun by ike, iirc...

while it might not have been personal, he did lead us into a war (which greatly expanded under johnson)...

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 03:46 PM
i see your point frankie, but i think jfk (whom i worship) expanded on the military involvement in vietnam which had been begun by ike, iirc...

while it might not have been personal, he did lead us into a war (which greatly expanded under johnson)...
And you would be correct. The only people who disbelieve this are those that got their education in History from Oliver Stone's JFK.

Cuba and Vietnam were Kennedy's primary responses to the Right's accusations that he was "soft on communism" because he had the nerve to attempt to establish a dialogue with Nikita Khruschev's Kremlin.

A classic case of one piece of political foolishness driving another, IMO.

Frankie
05-06-2006, 03:48 PM
i see your point frankie, but i think jfk (whom i worship) expanded on the military involvement in vietnam which had been begun by ike, iirc...

while it might not have been personal, he did lead us into a war (which greatly expanded under johnson)...
JFK made a lot of mistakes. He was a naive young prez early in his presidency. But he also demonstrated very quick learning ability from mistakes. The Bay of Pigs mistake begat the Cuban blockade masterpiece. The Viet Nam war as you pointed out was not started by JFK. By much evidence there are indications that he was beginning to see the futility of the Viet Nam involvement and was planning to pull out in his second term. He was a smart man and quick to gain experience. I'm convinced that the politically inexperienced young JFK of the early first term would have morphed into a hell of a president by his second. Its a shame we were all deprived of that. Now does any of the above apply to the current POTUS?

Auld Lang Syne
05-06-2006, 03:56 PM
JFK made a lot of mistakes. He was a naive young prez early in his presidency. But he also demonstrated very quick learning ability from mistakes. The Bay of Pigs mistake begat the Cuban blockade masterpiece. The Viet Nam war as you pointed out was not started by JFK. By much evidence there are indications that he was beginning to see the futility of the Viet Nam involvement and was planning to pull out in his second term. He was a smart man and quick to gain experience. I'm convinced that the politically inexperienced young JFK of the early first term would have morphed into a hell of a president by his second. Its a shame we were all deprived of that. Now does any of the above apply to the current POTUS?

So you are saying one kennedy any kennedy?

Your opinion of JFK is very incorrect, the only reason he is considered a good president is because he was killed while in office.

Frankie
05-06-2006, 04:04 PM
So you are saying one kennedy any kennedy?

Your opinion of JFK is very incorrect, the only reason he is considered a good president is because he was killed while in office.
I replied only about the JFK issue that go bo focused on. How you got "one kennedy any kennedy" is beyond me. I know you only have 8 posts on this forum. But it might sarve you well to read the entire sequence of a person's posts in a thread before you come to a shallow conclusion about his latest.

And, thanks for showing me the light about JFK. How did I ever see him as a good POTUS!? :hmmm:

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 04:21 PM
Your opinion of JFK is very incorrect, the only reason he is considered a good president is because he was killed while in office.That must be why William McKinley and James Garfield are considered such great presidents. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you can elighten us misinformed individuals as to which specific foreign and domestic policy decisions made JFK such an abhorrent president. Certainly, the man made mistakes (Bay of Pigs, expanding the number of advisors in Vietnam, IMO), but what made his administration such a disaster? :hmmm:

BTW-Speaking of James Garfield, when President Bush was told that Garfield's intellect was of such a great level that he could write in Latin with one hand, and simultaneously in Classical Greek with the other, he remarked:

"A Talking Cat was President?" ;)

(I'd be happy to credit the comedian I heard that from, but have forgotten. Sorry.)

BucEyedPea
05-06-2006, 04:23 PM
"A Talking Cat was President?" ;)
ROFL

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 04:31 PM
ROFL

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week, and don't forget to tip the waitress.

Up next is the sounds of "Merv and the Magic-Tones".

Frankie
05-06-2006, 04:36 PM
That must be why William McKinley and James Garfield are considered such great presidents. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you can elighten us misinformed individuals as to which specific foreign and domestic policy decisions made JFK such an abhorrent president. Certainly, the man made mistakes (Bay of Pigs, expanding the number of advisors in Vietnam, IMO), but what made his administration such a disaster? :hmmm:

BTW-Speaking of James Garfield, when President Bush was told that Garfield's intellect was of such a great level that he could write in Latin with one hand, and simultaneously in Classical Greek with the other, he remarked:

"A Talking Cat was President?" ;)

(I'd be happy to credit the comedian I heard that from, but have forgotten. Sorry.)
When it comes to judging JFK I depend on accomplished historians over ALS, unless he can provide proof that he was following Kennedy around all meetings in the early 60s.

redbrian
05-06-2006, 04:44 PM
And you would be correct. The only people who disbelieve this are those that got their education in History from Oliver Stone's JFK.

Cuba and Vietnam were Kennedy's primary responses to the Right's accusations that he was "soft on communism" because he had the nerve to attempt to establish a dialogue with Nikita Khruschev's Kremlin.

A classic case of one piece of political foolishness driving another, IMO.

Vietnamís roots go back to the end of WWII and the refusal of the world (including Harry Truman) to support the treaty which dictated that the French were to get out of Vietnam.

After all appeals to the west the north took up with the Russians and Chinese (canít always choose the friends you like).

Ike sent advisors to Nam in support of the South Vietnamese government.

Kennedy retched up the war and sent troops, after swallowing the whole domino theory BS.

Itís shear wishful thinking that Kennedy was going to end the war; he was headed down a one-way track with the throttle at full tilt boogie.

Your hero was also out joy riding bombed out of his skull on booze (typical for a Kennedy), when he crashed his PT109, thanks to his daddy he turned that little incident into a plus.

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 04:56 PM
Vietnamís roots go back to the end of WWII and the refusal of the world (including Harry Truman) to support the treaty which dictated that the French were to get out of Vietnam.

After all appeals to the west the north took up with the Russians and Chinese (canít always choose the friends you like).

Ike sent advisors to Nam in support of the South Vietnamese government.

Kennedy retched up the war and sent troops, after swallowing the whole domino theory BS.

Itís shear wishful thinking that Kennedy was going to end the war; he was headed down a one-way track with the throttle at full tilt boogie.I believe I already stated that only those that got their history from Stone's JFK believed anything different. :hmmm:
Your hero was also out joy riding bombed out of his skull on booze (typical for a Kennedy), when he crashed his PT109, thanks to his daddy he turned that little incident into a plus.I'm not sure how my post = "JFK is my hero", but then again, I've never spent much time figuring out feces flingers like you who can't be bothered to read what someone actually said before they respond. ;)

Of course, someone who'd believe that getting your PT Boat T-Boned by the Japanese Destroyer Amagiri was any kind of a plus (to a few political sheep, maybe, but certainly not to anyone with a brain) probably has all kind of humorous ideas about history. The kinds of ideas I've been snickering at for decades, quite likely.

For example, the idea that Ho Chi Minh was a huge fan of the West. Poor Uncle Ho only went for the USSR and China after we refused him in favor of one of our oldest allies, which we had just spent a huge amount of lives and treasure liberating. Love of the West and US Democracy must be why Uncle Ho was so involved in the Socalist movement and Communist party when he was attending school in France. Sure, he made an overture or two. IMO, it was calculated to drive a wedge between the US and the power occupying his country. Certainly not the worst political play he could have made, by a long shot.

Or the Idea that Kennedy deployed the first combat troops to Vietnam. Some feat, considering the first combat unit (9'th Marine Regiment) wasn't deployed in-country (Da Nang Airfield) until March of 1965. Before that, Kennedy had sent advisors to instruct the ARVN, but no troops for offensive combat operations. Our troops operated under the ROE of "only returning fire when fired upon" until late spring-summer of 1965.

Massive US involvement wasn't really inevitable until the so-called Gulf of Tonkin "incidents" in 1964.

Thanks for the Freshman level history lecture on the origins of the Vietnam war, though. I'd probably have forgotten all about it, without your thoughtful online refresher course. :thumb:

Auld Lang Syne
05-06-2006, 05:24 PM
When it comes to judging JFK I depend on accomplished historians over ALS, unless he can provide proof that he was following Kennedy around all meetings in the early 60s.

Apparently you are very young and not well read, but then if you are a democrat I'm sure that your observations of history might have taken on a slant towards your party.

Accomplished historians have made the remarks that JFK was not as great of a president as most see him. He almost makes Clinton look like a choir boy, but I digress.

Kennedy committed many troops to vietnam and prior to that he almost single handedly initiated WWIII with the Soviet Union, not to mention the "Bay of Pigs" and all of that in less than three years. What would have happened if he had not of been killed?

That is a question that cannot be answered but judging on his position on the world up to that point we can all speculate that it would have gotten worse than it did with LBJ.

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 05:43 PM
Kennedy committed many troops to vietnam and prior to that he almost single handedly initiated WWIII with the Soviet Union, not to mention the "Bay of Pigs" and all of that in less than three years. What would have happened if he had not of been killed?:rolleyes:
By the numbers:

1)Kennedy continued the policy of providing military advisors to the ARVN which began under the Eisenhower administration. Combat troops and authorization for offensive operations were not sent/given until early 1965. Greater detail is given in my response to redbrian above. Kennedy also greatly increased the Special Warfare capabilities of the Military, especially ordering the USN to create the first SEAL teams on the foundation of the UDT and Scouts and Raiders organizations. Do you condemn him for that as well?

2)As for "almost single handedly initiating WWIII". Really? :hmmm:

Funny, I always thought it was Nikita Khrushchev who authorized the deployment of SS-4 and SS-5 IRBM's and FROG tactical missiles (with launch authority given to the commander on the scene for the first time ever) to Cuba. I was fully unaware Kennedy had the authority to order the deployment of Soviet Missiles.

In truth, JFK and his EXCOMM (the predecessor to the modern NSC) were thankfully intelligent enough to find the only option that would have avoided WWIII.

If we had acquised, the Soviet build-up would have continued, and the Soviets would have been emboldened to act even more aggressively, perhaps in Europe.

If we had ordered airstrikes and an invasion, as some on the JCOS were calling for (primarily the idiot commander of SAC, Gen. Powers), our troops would have been vaporized on the beachhead by the FROG's mentioned above. The local commander had launch authority, and wouldn't have had to get orders from Moscow. Furthermore, the few SS-4's and SS-5's that were operational would have been fired. You could then blame JFK for losing Washington, possibly NY, and a number of other cities I suppose.

On the "plus" side, the USSR would have been utterly anihilated. On the "minus" side, the world would likely have seen it as the US striking first. The difference in our response compared to what the Soviet's could have fielded would have been massive. We would have lost a few cities, but their nation would have ceased to exist. Years later, that would have been what people thought of when the word "Holocaust" was used, IMO. Again, a holocaust the world would likely see us (accurately or not) as starting.

The Blockade option chosen allowed both sides to save face. JFK's agreement to remove the obsolete Jupiter missiles from SE Europe several months after the crisis removed the threat the concerned Khruschev the most, removing the reason for his IRBM deployment to Cuba. The delay prevented the move from being seen as "appeasement" or a "quid pro quo" move which could have been used for propaganda purposes by the Soviet Union. Again, a very shrewd move.

The blockade option was chosen primarily because JFK had intelligence from a Colonel in the Soviet GRU (Col. Oleg Penkovsky) who informed us that our strategic forces vastly outnumbered what the Soviets could field. Tragically, Col. Penkovsky was caught a number of years later, and thrown alive into a furnace by the GRU for his betrayal.

ALS, How do you believe JFK should have responded? By igniting WW3, or should he have become another Neville Chamberlain?

3)The Bay of Pigs was a multi-administration foul up. Planning, training and buildup was begun by the CIA under Eisenhower. Kennedy's mistakes were twofold. 1)Allowing it to go forward (IMO because of complaints from the Right he was "soft on communism"). 2)After it had gone forward, withholding critical air support for the Cuban insurgents.

As for "what would have happened if he hadn't been killed"? Odds are that the Khruschev-Kennedy summits scheduled for 1964 would have had a good chance of giving the world detente' a decade sooner, or possibly Glastnost decades sooner. Both JFK and Khruschev had looked into the abyss, and found their way back by that point. Both (at least from their own writings and statements) seemed serious about the notion of arms reduction. It remains to be seen if the political climates within the hawkish elements of either nation would have allowed such a rapprochment, however.


To amend your previous post:

Apparently you are not well read, but then if you are a republican I'm sure that your observations of history might have taken on a slant towards your party.

Consider me eagerly awaiting your learned rebuttal, ALS.

Nightwish
05-06-2006, 05:54 PM
I've accepted that they'll never run out of money, but you'd think eventually they'd run out of sperm.

I wouldn't say the WH is out, though. If Killer can make the Senate and stay there this guy isn't washed up yet.Don't drug-induced car accidents mean you're a slam dunk for the Presidency now? I think Bush set that precedent, didn't he?

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 05:57 PM
Don't drug-induced car accidents mean you're a slam dunk for the Presidency now? I think Bush set that precedent, didn't he?

ROFLROFL

banyon
05-06-2006, 06:03 PM
Apparently you are very young and not well read, but then if you are a democrat I'm sure that your observations of history might have taken on a slant towards your party.

Accomplished historians have made the remarks that JFK was not as great of a president as most see him. He almost makes Clinton look like a choir boy, but I digress.

Kennedy committed many troops to vietnam and prior to that he almost single handedly initiated WWIII with the Soviet Union, not to mention the "Bay of Pigs" and all of that in less than three years. What would have happened if he had not of been killed?

That is a question that cannot be answered but judging on his position on the world up to that point we can all speculate that it would have gotten worse than it did with LBJ.

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_U.S._Presidents

BucEyedPea
05-06-2006, 06:03 PM
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week, and don't forget to tip the waitress.
Up next is the sounds of "Merv and the Magic-Tones".
http://www.gifanimations.com/Image/Animations/Money/~TS1146956219837/falling_money.gif

Don't spend it all at once.

CHIEF4EVER
05-06-2006, 06:05 PM
Don't drug-induced car accidents mean you're a slam dunk for the Presidency now? I think Bush set that precedent, didn't he?

Sure, if he plans on running 22 years from now. The one thing in his favor is that he didn't drown his mistress on thaht theah ehhhh Chappaquiddick Bridge ehhhh.

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 06:16 PM
Sure, if he plans on running 22 years from now. The one thing in his favor is that he didn't drown his mistress on thaht theah ehhhh Chappaquiddick Bridge ehhhh.

True. That more than anything probably kept Ted K. from a serious run at the presidency. Personally, I'd consider Mary Jo Kopechne a martyr to this nation for that fact alone. ;)

22 years would be make him just about the right age to take a shot at the presidency. That said, I'll be thrilled if I never hear from another politician named "Kennedy" or "Bush" again.

CHIEF4EVER
05-06-2006, 06:20 PM
True. That more than anything probably kept Ted K. from a serious run at the presidency. Personally, I'd consider Mary Jo Kopechne a martyr to this nation for that fact alone. ;)

22 years would be make him just about the right age to take a shot at the presidency. That said, I'll be thrilled if I never hear from another politician named "Kennedy" or "Bush" again.
:thumb:

Good post. Rep.

EDIT: Add 'Clinton' to your list. If that bidge gets elected we will be at war every 30 days. ROFL

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 06:25 PM
:thumb:

Good post. Rep.

EDIT: Add 'Clinton' to your list. If that bidge gets elected we will be at war every 30 days. ROFL

Consider her added as I'll have to agree. I wasn't a real big fan of her husband, but I'd rather have him than her. Oy.

Have a good one, buddy!

Frankie
05-06-2006, 07:25 PM
Apparently you are very young and not well read, ......
ROFL
I wish you'd put a 3rd condition there so maybe I could say "one out of three ain't bad!"

Do you remember where you were the day of the Kennedy assasination? I do. And please post the titles of the books and reports that you have read so we all could follow your path to ultimate knowledge. :rolleyes:

Frankie
05-06-2006, 07:30 PM
:rolleyes:
By the numbers:...........
To amend your previous post:

Apparently you are not well read, but then if you are a republican I'm sure that your observations of history might have taken on a slant towards your party.

Consider me eagerly awaiting your learned rebuttal, ALS.
ALS- An ironically appropriate moniker you have there. :thumb:
How dare you, AH, question the Everest of knowledge and wisdom that ALS has amassed in his long years on this Earth? Repent and yee shall be saved.
:p

Frankie
05-06-2006, 07:33 PM
Don't drug-induced car accidents mean you're a slam dunk for the Presidency now? I think Bush set that precedent, didn't he?
ROFL
There has scarcely been a CP post this much on the money. Rep! :clap:

patteeu
05-06-2006, 09:56 PM
2)As for "almost single handedly initiating WWIII". Really? :hmmm:

Funny, I always thought it was Nikita Khrushchev who authorized the deployment of SS-4 and SS-5 IRBM's and FROG tactical missiles (with launch authority given to the commander on the scene for the first time ever) to Cuba. I was fully unaware Kennedy had the authority to order the deployment of Soviet Missiles.

I'm no expert on the Cuban Missile Crisis so correct me if I'm wrong, but in addition to blockading Cuba, didn't Kennedy threaten pre-emptive war with Cuba and the Soviets over those missiles? Would the Adept Havelocks of that period have criticized that position by suggesting that MAD works with the Soviets and their homeland-based missiles so why won't it continue to work if they have missiles in Cuba?

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 10:52 PM
I'm no expert on the Cuban Missile Crisis so correct me if I'm wrong, but in addition to blockading Cuba, didn't Kennedy threaten pre-emptive war with Cuba and the Soviets over those missiles? Would the Adept Havelocks of that period have criticized that position by suggesting that MAD works with the Soviets and their homeland-based missiles so why won't it continue to work if they have missiles in Cuba?Well, if I may be so immodest, I am something of an expert on the subject. That said, I can state with great confidence Kennedy only made three statements concerning the missiles in Cuba.

1) A Naval blockade of Cuba would be put in effect denying the Soviets further opportunity to increase the forces already deployed there.

2) The missiles must be withdrawn. There could be no negotiation on this subject.

3) Any missile launched from Cuba against the United States or any of it's allies would be construed as an attack on this nation by the Soviet Union.

There were preparations for an invasion made as part of preparation for general war with the Soviet Union. There was also several "saber-rattling" maneuvers done along these lines. However, Invasion was only considered as an absolute "last ditch" option, at least according to the minutes of the ExComm meetings. Certainly a couple of the more foolish members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were agitating for such, but not the President. Heck, Gen. Powers even authorized a missile test from Vandenburg in an attempt to provoke the Soviets.

Those conditions given, with no Presidential mention of "pre-emptive" war, your last point is a bit nonsensical.

Hypothetically though, if Kennedy had decided to invade, the "Adept Havelocks" would most certainly have opposed such a foolish decision. I certainly did. Invasion was not a realistic option for the reasons outlined in my previous posts. IMO, Kennedy's third statement shows he shared this belief and trusted MAD to aid in resolving the crisis.

In short, it is a given that if we had pre-emptively invaded, the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons on the beachheads, and adopted a use-them or lost them strategy concerning the SS-4's and SS-5's as discussed in my previous posts. Though we certainly would have "won" the subsequent strategic exchange in Oct. of 1962, the cost in lives, property, and world opinion would have far exceeded our losses in WW 1 and 2 combined.

Fortunately for Kennedy, ExComm, and the world, Penkovsky's intelligence (A Col. on the General Staff on the GRU) was of such an unprecedented clarity and quality that we were certain beyond the shadow of a doubt of the relative strength of the Soviet strategic forces, vis a vie our own. It's not much of a poker game when you have a mirror clearly showing you the other persons cards.

Besides, Khruschev's risky move clearly showed the intelligence was correct, as the only reason to risk such a provocation by deploying IRBM's so closely would be profound concerns about the ability of his Soviet ICBM's and strategic bombers. After all, the Soviets didn't posess any strategic aircraft until they began production of the TU-4, a direct copy of a B-29 that put down during WW2.

Given that knowledge, and Khruschev's actions, Kennedy and ExComm chose the blockade option because they were certain that MAD would previal. If only all of our leaders made sure their intelligence was of that quality before committing our nation to an irrevocable course of action. ;)

I offer a modest suggestion. While enjoyable, neither "The Missiles of October" nor "Thirteen Days" nor "The Great Santini" are very good films concerning the crisis from a strict historical perspective. Your statement, the films promenance, and my own past experience lead me to believe that at least one of these has provided some of your misapprehensions about the Crisis of October 1962.

You may consider yourself corrected for being wrong, patty. Happy to be of service.:D

patteeu
05-07-2006, 12:17 AM
Well, if I may be so immodest, I am something of an expert on the subject. That said, I can state with great confidence Kennedy only made three statements concerning the missiles in Cuba.

...

I offer a modest suggestion. While enjoyable, neither "The Missiles of October" nor "Thirteen Days" nor "The Great Santini" are very good films concerning the crisis from a strict historical perspective. Your statement, the films promenance, and my own past experience lead me to believe that at least one of these has provided some of your misapprehensions about the Crisis of October 1962.

You may consider yourself corrected for being wrong, patty. Happy to be of service.:D

Well I'm sure you are more knowledgeable of the details of the Crisis than I am, but my limited research on the subject leads me to question your conclusions.

Khrushchev seemed to believe that the Kennedy administration was offering him an ultimatum (whether it was in fact a bluff or not) and the President's brother, while denying that an "ultimatum" was offered, confirmed that a pretty clear signal was sent that if the Russians didn't remove their missiles, the US was prepared to remove them by force (i.e. a pre-emptive strike).

From a memo (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba096.htm) from Bobby Kennedy to Secretary of State Rusk explaining a meeting he had had with the Soviet Ambassador:

I said that [the Soviet Ambassador] had better understand the situation and he had better communicate that understanding to Mr. Khrushchev. Mr. Khrushchev and he had misled us. The Soviet Union had secretly established missile bases in Cuba while at the same time proclaiming, privately and publicly, that this would never be done. I said those missile bases had to go and they had to go right away. We had to have a commitment by at least tomorrow that those bases would be removed. This was not an ultimatum, I said, but just a statement of fact. He should understand that if they did not remove those bases then we would remove them. His country might take retaliatory action but he should understand that before this was over, while there might be dead Americans there would also be dead Russians.

Now that sounds to me like we threatened pre-emptive war despite your rejection of the idea. FTR, I haven't watched any movies about the Cuban Missile Crisis so I'm even less informed than those who have although from what you say, maybe that's a good thing.

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 10:01 AM
Well I'm sure you are more knowledgeable of the details of the Crisis than I am, but my limited research on the subject leads me to question your conclusions.

Khrushchev seemed to believe that the Kennedy administration was offering him an ultimatum (whether it was in fact a bluff or not) and the President's brother, while denying that an "ultimatum" was offered, confirmed that a pretty clear signal was sent that if the Russians didn't remove their missiles, the US was prepared to remove them by force (i.e. a pre-emptive strike).

From a memo (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cuba096.htm) from Bobby Kennedy to Secretary of State Rusk explaining a meeting he had had with the Soviet Ambassador:



Now that sounds to me like we threatened pre-emptive war despite your rejection of the idea. FTR, I haven't watched any movies about the Cuban Missile Crisis so I'm even less informed than those who have although from what you say, maybe that's a good thing.I believe I stated that preperations were made for an invasion, and that some "saber-rattling" was done.

You are correct in that "Kennedy" may have made some comment along those lines. I believed you were referring to John, not Robert, as that's who we were speaking of. JFK never made a public statement (nor a direct back-alley diplomatic one, to my knowledge) threatening a "pre-emptive" strike. To use a phrase I'm sure you are fond of, he informed his diplomats and RFK to express that all "options were on the table."

Are you not familiar with the concept of "Good Cop, Bad Cop?" JFK playing up the diplomatic/blockade angle, while using his brother in back-alley maneuvers to send a more threatening and somber (though bluffing) message. They knew they had Khrushchev by his short and curlies.

From what I have read of the ExComm minutes, Invasion was contemplated only as a last-ditch option, to be carried out in the event of general hostilities with the Soviet Union.

That said, my response to your original question stands. The "Adept Havelocks" of the time would have opposed executing a policy of airstrikes/invasion in this circumstance, as it was clear MAD would be sufficent. The fact JFK believed in MAD in this situation seems quite self-evident considering the facts that he 1)embraced the blockade/quarantine option, and 2)made his statement about any attack from Cuba being treated as an attack by the Soviet Union.

In this crisis, I also have no problem with the saber-rattling as it is an integral part of diplomacy, and let Khrushchev know that we were aware of what he already knew, I.E. that the US had a massive strategic advanatage over the USSR.

MAD worked as Kennedy believed it would. As it would in a similar situation in Iran, IMO. I'm guessing that was your original point behind asking this question. However, I would qualify my support of Saber-Rattling vis-a-vie Iran as the current president has already shown that he has no problem with unnecessary pre-emptive strikes, and has shown he is quite willing to make questionable decisions based on dubious intelligence.

mlyonsd
05-07-2006, 10:23 AM
The fact that Kennedy acknowledged he has a problem and is willing to do something about it before someone gets hurt is something I find commendable.

Frankie
05-07-2006, 10:35 AM
BTW, at the risk of being accused by some CP Bush lover of playing the sympathy card, I have to ask this because I'm very curious:

Is this the same Ted's son who lost a leg to Cancer as a teen? :hmmm:

stevieray
05-07-2006, 01:02 PM
BTW, at the risk of being accused by some CP Bush lover of playing the sympathy card,

:

no, this would be baiting and playing the victim card.

If you're curious, why not just ask the question?

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 01:08 PM
no, this would be baiting and playing the victim card.

If you're curious, why not just ask the question?ROFLROFL

Because he has learned from the GOP's recent election cycles how important the "framing" of a question is? :shrug:

He's just not that accomplished at it yet.

Frankie
05-07-2006, 01:49 PM
ROFLROFL

Because he has learned from the GOP's recent election cycles how important the "framing" of a question is? :shrug:

He's just not that accomplished at it yet.
I'm just tired of some resident nut-job harping on questions like that and completely taking the subject off tangent. It was a simple curiousity and I needed a simple answer. To do that, my past experience about the PC RWNJs dictated that I nip the inevitable accusations in the bud. Stevie, for example, would have done well to simply answer the question, instead of repeating what he thinks God told him about my intentions. I myself certainly didn't give him any indication of wanting to go on an off-tangent debate. :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 01:55 PM
To Adept Havelock and patteeu:

AH you can correct me if I am wrong but...
Recently, about a month or so ago, I "Googled" the subject: the closest we'd come to a nuclear war. What came up was the "Cuban Missile Crisis."

I haven't a clue where that link would be now. But it credited JFK and even Khrushchev, as two leaders having prevailed as the cooler heads on both sides.

A few facts, that I never heard mentioned before was that one reason for the Soviets actions in Cuba was that US nuclear missiles in Turkey. Kennedy had these removed eventually and his action was part of the resolution of this crisis but certain books don't acknowlege this.

The closest I could find again on this point was this:

(A14) Theodore Sorensen, interviewed in 1989.

Kennedy recognized that, for Chairman Khrushchev to withdraw the missiles from Cuba, it would be undoubtedly helpful to him if he could say at the same time to his colleagues on the Presidium, "And we have been assured that the missiles will be coming out of Turkey." And so, after the ExComm meeting (on the evening of 27 October 1962), as I'm sure almost all of you know, a small group met in President Kennedy's office, and he instructed Robert Kennedy - at the suggestion of Secretary of State Dean Rusk - to deliver the letter to Ambassador Dobrynin for referral to Chairman Khrushchev, but to add orally what was not in the letter: that the missiles would come out of Turkey. Ambassador Dobrynin felt that Robert Kennedy's book did not adequately express that the "deal" on the Turkish missiles was part of the resolution of the crisis. And here I have a confession to make to my colleagues on the American side, as well as to others who are present. I was the editor of Robert Kennedy's book. It was, in fact, a diary of those thirteen days. And his diary was very explicit that this was part of the deal; but at that time it was still a secret even on the American side, except for the six of us who had been present at that meeting. So I took it upon myself to edit that out of his diaries, and that is why the Ambassador is somewhat justified in saying that the diaries are not as explicit as his conversation.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDcubanmissile.htm


patteeu,
There is also the "Monroe Doctrine" for policy in our own territory. However, Iraq is what 5 or 6,000 miles away? Therefore, it doesn't apply. Plus Iraq had no delivery system for any alleged weapons. It also had no navy, it's army was destroyed after PGWI and it's infrastructure had been weakened from sanctions etc. Also, even if Iraq had weapons, SH was containable.

SH had ample opportunity for using his alleged WMD, on numerous occasions on Israel. Yet, he NEVER did. He was also threatened by the Bush Sr. administration with nuclear annihilation if he used any such WMD's on Israel or US soldiers in PGW1. As I understand none were loaded on those scuds that he sent into Israel and none on us. PG disease has not been attributed to these either. This shows SH was a survivor and could be contained.

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 02:16 PM
To Adept Havelock and patteeu:

AH you can correct me if I am wrong but...
Recently, about a month or so ago, I "Googled" the subject: the closest we'd come to a nuclear war. What came up was the "Cuban Missile Crisis."

I haven't a clue where that link would be now. But it credited JFK and even Khrushchev, as two leaders having prevailed as the cooler heads on both sides.

A few facts, that I never heard mentioned before was that one reason for the Soviets actions in Cuba was that US nuclear missiles in Turkey. Kennedy had these removed eventually and his action was part of the resolution of this crisis but certain books don't acknowlege this.

The closest I could find again on this point was this:



http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDcubanmissile.htm


patteeu,
There is also the "Monroe Doctrine" for policy in our own territory. However, Iraq is what 5 or 6,000 miles away? Therefore, it doesn't apply. Plus Iraq had no delivery system for any alleged weapons. It also had no navy, it's army was destroyed after PGWI and it's infrastructure had been weakened from sanctions etc. Also, even if Iraq had weapons, SH was containable.

SH had ample opportunity for using his alleged WMD, on numerous occasions on Israel. Yet, he NEVER did. He was also threatened by the Bush Sr. administration with nuclear annihilation if he used any such WMD's on Israel or US soldiers in PGW1. As I understand none were loaded on those scuds that he sent into Israel and none on us. PG disease has not been attributed to these either. This shows SH was a survivor and could be contained.I may have mentioned this above, but am not sure. Kennedy agreed through back-alley diplomacy that the Jupiter missiles would be withdrawn from Turkey approx. six months into the future, as long as two conditions were met:

1) The Soviets withdrew their missiles from Cuba.

2) That there be no mention of the Jupiter missile agreement by the Soviet Union. Furthermore, any suggestion by the Soviet Union that the removal of the (then obsolete) Jupiter IRBM's was any part of a quid pro quo agreement would mean the "deal was off" immediately.

In this manner, the US was able to protray the draw down as part of a routine decomissioning of an obsolete weapons system. This also gave Khruschev a "barganing" chip he desperately needed in his own internal power struggle over the crisis with the hawks in the Soviet Army and KGB.

Many westerners make the mistake of assuming that the "Premier" or "Chairman" of the Politburo was a dictator. In truth, Soviet politics was a continuious game of playing one side off the other between the three legs of Soviet Government, I.E. Party, Army, and KGB. Kennedy recognized this, and provided Khruschev with a "victory" that helped Khruschev that was an irrelevant concession in regards to the ability of the US Strategic Forces.

BucEyedPea, you also make excellent points regarding both the Monroe Doctrine, and the fact that his own behaviors show MAD quite likely assured the containment of Hussien's Iraq.

As far as the closest we came to a nuclear war, I would say that the crisis of October 1962 is a narrow winner. The Suez crisis and the simultaneous Hungarian Uprising in '56 was another close call. During the early days of the 73' Yom Kippur war, there was serious debate in the Knesset and IDF about using the Israeli nuclear stockpile. There is also a great deal of evidence that the Soviet Union was in the stages of deploying nuclear weapons to Egypt and Syria (both of whom were then experiencing invasion by a resurgent Israeli Army) when the UN cease fire stopped the war. Call it a coin flip between '73 and '62.

However, due to the improvements in the Soviet arsenal in the decade following the Cuban crisis, a nuclear war in '73 would have been more devastating by several orders of magnitude.

The world also came close in 1983, though it didn't make the news. Andropov's Kremlin was gravely concerned that the NATO Able Archer exercise and the US invasion of Grenada (both Oct. and Nov. of 1983)and the concurrent raising of security levels at US bases worldwide (due to the Oct. '83 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon) were indicative that the US was seriously contemplating a first strike. Thankfully, a British Double agent (Gordievsky) briefed William Casey (DCI) and helped the US to understand how grave the situation was becoming. This led to the US making overtures for the Reykjavik summit, and helped convince Reagan that he needed to re-establish a dialogue with the Soviet Union.

:hmmm:
Hungary '56, Cuba '62, Middle East '73, Able Archer '83? What the hell is the connection between grave geopolitical crisises and the month of October?

Cochise
05-07-2006, 02:33 PM
Damn, Frankie, I thought you were reformed. It's like witnessing de-evolution here.

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by Adept Havelock Hungary '56, Cuba '62, Middle East '73. What the hell is the connection between grave geopolitical crisises and the month of October?

Because that time of year is the decay part of the cycle of life/seasons before death of winter sets in?

or

Witches, goblins and ghosts are doing their part in hexing and terrifying us humans at this time of year as part of one big trick?

Take your pick. :)

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 02:59 PM
Because that time of year is the decay part of the cycle of life/seasons before death of winter sets in?

or

Witches, goblins and ghosts are doing their part in hexing and terrifying us humans at this time of year as part of one big trick?

Take your pick. :)

:clap:ROFL

Heh, Good one.

stevieray
05-07-2006, 04:22 PM
Stevie, for example, would have done well to simply answer the question, instead of repeating what he thinks God told him about my intentions.

man, you really are immature for being in your fifties.

but hey, thanks for confirming your bigotry.

stevieray
05-07-2006, 04:25 PM
I myself certainly didn't give him any indication of wanting to go on an off-tangent debate. :rolleyes:

BS.

It would be hard to think you had ulterior motives from a simple question of that nature. Even though it's obvious now that you do, considering you almost can't post without mentioning your perceived "enemy".

patteeu
05-07-2006, 08:02 PM
I believe I stated that preperations were made for an invasion, and that some "saber-rattling" was done.

You are correct in that "Kennedy" may have made some comment along those lines. I believed you were referring to John, not Robert, as that's who we were speaking of. JFK never made a public statement (nor a direct back-alley diplomatic one, to my knowledge) threatening a "pre-emptive" strike. To use a phrase I'm sure you are fond of, he informed his diplomats and RFK to express that all "options were on the table."

Yes, when I said "Kennedy" I meant JFK, but what I had in mind was the JFK administration. Furthermore, my allegation was absolutely not limited to public statements. Was your rejection of my statement based on the narrow grounds that JFK himself didn't actually utter the words "I am officially threatening you with a pre-emptive war" in a public statement? That's a pretty narrow defense if you ask me.

Whether this was mere saber rattling in conjunction with a bluff or whether it was a serious threat that the Kennedy administration would have turned into a reality had the Soviets refused to cave, the fact is that from the outside of the Kennedy mind and the administration's inner sanctum, it was a threat of pre-emptive war. It was certainly taken as such and Robert Kennedy's own memo indicates that he gave the Soviet Ambassador every reason to believe that that is what it was.

Are you not familiar with the concept of "Good Cop, Bad Cop?" JFK playing up the diplomatic/blockade angle, while using his brother in back-alley maneuvers to send a more threatening and somber (though bluffing) message. They knew they had Khrushchev by his short and curlies.

From what I have read of the ExComm minutes, Invasion was contemplated only as a last-ditch option, to be carried out in the event of general hostilities with the Soviet Union.

That said, my response to your original question stands. The "Adept Havelocks" of the time would have opposed executing a policy of airstrikes/invasion in this circumstance, as it was clear MAD would be sufficent. The fact JFK believed in MAD in this situation seems quite self-evident considering the facts that he 1)embraced the blockade/quarantine option, and 2)made his statement about any attack from Cuba being treated as an attack by the Soviet Union.

It wasn't at all clear that MAD would be sufficient. But I accept your claim that you'd have been opposed to following through on the threat even if you didn't have the hindsight that makes it a clear call today.

In this crisis, I also have no problem with the saber-rattling as it is an integral part of diplomacy, and let Khrushchev know that we were aware of what he already knew, I.E. that the US had a massive strategic advanatage over the USSR.

MAD worked as Kennedy believed it would. As it would in a similar situation in Iran, IMO. I'm guessing that was your original point behind asking this question. However, I would qualify my support of Saber-Rattling vis-a-vie Iran as the current president has already shown that he has no problem with unnecessary pre-emptive strikes, and has shown he is quite willing to make questionable decisions based on dubious intelligence.

Saber rattling has no effect if there isn't a belief that it might lead to actual saber swinging. If anything, the fact that the US was willing to go to war in Iraq should make saber rattling vis-a-vie Iran all the more effective. OTOH, signficant public abandonment of the US war effort in Iraq, both domestically and internationally, works against the effectiveness of that saber rattling, IMO.

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 08:21 PM
Yes, when I said "Kennedy" I meant JFK, but what I had in mind was the JFK administration. Furthermore, my allegation was absolutely not limited to public statements. Was your rejection of my statement based on the narrow grounds that JFK himself didn't actually utter the words "I am officially threatening you with a pre-emptive war" in a public statement? That's a pretty narrow defense if you ask me.

Whether this was mere saber rattling in conjunction with a bluff or whether it was a serious threat that the Kennedy administration would have turned into a reality had the Soviets refused to cave, the fact is that from the outside of the Kennedy mind and the administration's inner sanctum, it was a threat of pre-emptive war. It was certainly taken as such and Robert Kennedy's own memo indicates that he gave the Soviet Ambassador every reason to believe that that is what it was.My rejection of your statement is based on the fact that while Invasion was expressed as one of the options on the table, it was never considered as a realistic option short of general war by the Kennedy administration. If they had, why would JFK and RFK both deny that any "ultimatum" was issued? I believe that I'm distinguishing between seriously considered policy and expressions of diplomatic posturing, when you are not. I believe that is the source of misunderstanding. As it was my presumption, I apologize.

As I've said, Kennedy's actions and statements make it quite clear that he believed that MAD would suffice to force the Soviets to withdraw, and he was proven correct. The ExComm minutes make it quite clear that invasion was only contemplated as part of a general war with the Soviet Union, regardless of diplomatic maneuvering and posturing (hence the memo to Rusk).
It wasn't at all clear that MAD would be sufficient. But I accept your claim that you'd have been opposed to following through on the threat even if you didn't have the hindsight that makes it a clear call today.Again, you (willfully?) ignore the fact that it was a clear call for the Kennedy administration. JFK's certainty that MAD would suffice was based upon the unprecedented (at least since the "Lucy" ring and the "Red Orchestra" of WW2) level of intelligence provided by Col. Oleg Penkovsky. Other preperations are simply indicative that even with this certainty, JFK believed in being prepared for a worst case scenario. It was also a move to pacify the hawkish elements in his own administration, led by Lemay's protege Gen. Powers. In much the same way as the Jupiter missile "agreement" was done to pacify Khruschev's hawks.

Perhaps you have information that I've never seen that undermines the regard that Penkovsky's intelligence was held in. Everything I've ever read, and everyone I've spoken with who's knowledgable on the subject, states that his information was considered one step below a mathematical proof as far as reliabilty was concerned. Furthermore, It was considered as such by the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations.

As for accepting my claim of opposition, what a generous concession. I'm truly underwhelmed. :rolleyes:
Saber rattling has no effect if there isn't a belief that it might lead to actual saber swinging. If anything, the fact that the US was willing to go to war in Iraq should make saber rattling vis-a-vie Iran all the more effective. OTOH, signficant public abandonment of the US war effort in Iraq, both domestically and internationally, works against the effectiveness of that saber rattling, IMO.If the current administrations increasingly reckless course to drum up support for an invasion or airstrikes on Iran is undermined and derailed, I certainly don't see that as a bad thing. MAD has been effective since 1949, and I am fully confident it will remain so, even in the face of a nuclear armed Iran. Plenty of people screamed that the Soviet Bomb in 1949 meant the end of the world as well. Clearly, it wasn't. MAD quite effectively dealt with that threat, as it will deal with future ones.

Frankie
05-07-2006, 08:30 PM
man, you really are immature for being in your fifties.

but hey, thanks for confirming your bigotry.
Assuming dressin up as a long dead entertainer is mature, let's talk about what's immature with posting in chatrooms. It's replying in aggressive reaction to someone's posts with shallow, uninformed, loaded and bigoted, judgemental, "hollier than thou" one line posts and disappearing after you are called upon to have a civil debate about the subject at hand.

1- "Judge not lest yee shall be judged." guess who said it. One hint: It wasn't Elvis.

2- Instead of hit and run, at least have the balls to return and accept the invitation for a mutually informative debate. I have extended that invitation to you many times. Several times in the last week on different threads, but you chose to hide after you felt you had delivered your little personal sucker punch, making it obvious that you are never clever enough nor informed and intellectually equipped for exchange of points in a debate.

Maturity comes from depth of character. Those who know me well and whose intelligence I respect consider me as possessing it. Your close-minded and shallow judgements serve merely as my little trophies of your intellectual submission.

Frankie
05-07-2006, 08:32 PM
BS.

It would be hard to think you had ulterior motives from a simple question of that nature. Even though it's obvious now that you do, considering you almost can't post without mentioning your perceived "enemy".
See my last post.

stevieray
05-07-2006, 08:52 PM
Assuming dressin up as a long dead entertainer is mature, let's talk about what's immature with posting in chatrooms. It's replying in aggressive reaction to someone's posts with shallow, uninformed, loaded and bigoted, judgemental, "hollier than thou" one line posts and disappearing after you are called upon to have a civil debate about the subject at hand.

1- "Judge not lest yee shall be judged." guess who said it. One hint: It wasn't Elvis.

2- Instead of hit and run, at least have the balls to return and accept the invitation for a mutually informative debate. I have extended that invitation to you many times. Several times in the last week on different threads, but you chose to hide after you felt you had delivered your little personal sucker punch, making it obvious that you are never clever enough nor informed and intellectually equipped for exchange of points in a debate.

Maturity comes from depth of character. Those who know me well and whose intelligence I respect consider me as possessing it. Your close-minded and shallow judgements serve merely as my little trophies of your intellectual submission.

I know it's hard being a bigot, we all deal with it at one time or another. Right now it's your turn.

I only asked questions, which you avoided answering by asserting your victim card, claiming to personally crucified and then ironically enough, act out what you claim others do. Stop making others responsible for your feelings. all you had to do is answer the question.

I hope you reread your post and realize that you're doing and saying what you are lashing out about.

patteeu
05-07-2006, 09:10 PM
My rejection of your statement is based on the fact that while Invasion was expressed as one of the options on the table, it was never considered as a realistic option short of general war by the Kennedy administration. If they had, why would JFK and RFK both deny that any "ultimatum" was issued? I believe that I'm distinguishing between seriously considered policy and expressions of diplomatic posturing, when you are not.

As I've said, Kennedy's actions and statements make it quite clear that he believed that MAD would suffice to force the Soviets to withdraw, and he was proven correct. The ExComm minutes make it quite clear that invasion was only contemplated as part of a general war with the Soviet Union, regardless of diplomatic maneuvering and posturing (hence the memo to Rusk).

To hear you tell it, the Kennedy's were completely confident that there wasn't any problem at all and that a little posturing would undoubtably force the Russians to remove their missiles. No sweat at all. I find that laughable in contrast with your own statement that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest we ever came to a nuclear exchange.

Kennedy may have believed that MAD and a threat (implied, back channeled, or otherwise) would suffice, but you seem to be intent on underselling the tension and doubts that must have been present at the time if it is the closest we've ever come to a nuclear exchange.

And yes, I think you are making a distinction that I am not and an unwarranted one at that. My original statement was that Kennedy threatened pre-emptive war. I didn't say that he waged pre-emptive war or that he ordered that pre-emptive war be initiated or even that he planned to begin pre-emptive war on a date certain if the missiles hadn't been removed. With the exception of correctly pointing out that I was using "Kennedy" (as in JFK) when I should have been using "the Kennedy administration," nothing you've said has given me any reason to believe I'm wrong about that.

To your point about hindsight and clarity-
Again, you (willfully?) ignore the fact that it was a clear call for the Kennedy administration. JFK's certainty that MAD would suffice was based upon the unprecedented (at least since the "Lucy" ring and the "Red Orchestra" of WW2) level of intelligence provided by Col. Oleg Penkovsky. Other preperations are simply indicative that even with this certainty, JFK believed in being prepared for a worst case scenario. It was also a move to pacify the hawkish elements in his own administration, led by Lemay's protege Gen. Powers. In much the same way as the Jupiter missile "agreement" was done to pacify Khruschev's hawks.

Perhaps you have information that I've never seen that undermine the regard that Penkovsky's intelligence was held in. Everything I've ever read on the subject states that his information was considered one step below a mathematical proof, as far as reliabilty was concerned, by the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations.

If that's the case, then I guess we were never really close to a nuclear exchange at all and this whole diplomatic exchange is mislabeled as a "crisis" by both the consensus of historians and by yourself. Where is the crisis if the outcome is not in question.


As for accepting my claim of opposition, what a generous concession. I'm truly underwhelmed. :rolleyes:

I thought it was pretty generous since it was and, based on this latest post remains, tempting to believe that your objectivity in this matter is clouded by hindsight.

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 09:24 PM
To hear you tell it, the Kennedy's were completely confident that there wasn't any problem at all and that a little posturing would undoubtably force the Russians to remove their missiles. No sweat at all. I find that laughable in contrast with your own statement that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest we ever came to a nuclear exchange.

Kennedy may have believed that MAD and a threat (implied, back channeled, or otherwise) would suffice, but you seem to be intent on underselling the tension and doubts that must have been present at the time if it is the closest we've ever come to a nuclear exchange.

And yes, I think you are making a distinction that I am not and an unwarranted one at that. My original statement was that Kennedy threatened pre-emptive war. I didn't say that he waged pre-emptive war or that he ordered that pre-emptive war be initiated or even that he planned to begin pre-emptive war on a date certain if the missiles hadn't been removed. With the exception of correctly pointing out that I was using "Kennedy" (as in JFK) when I should have been using "the Kennedy administration," nothing you've said has given me any reason to believe I'm wrong about that.

If that's the case, then I guess we were never really close to a nuclear exchange at all and this whole diplomatic exchange is mislabeled as a "crisis" by both the consensus of historians and by yourself. Where is the crisis if the outcome is not in question.

I thought it was pretty generous since it was and, based on this latest post remains, tempting to believe that your objectivity in this matter is clouded by hindsight.I believe I already apologized for my unwarranted distinction. As that apparently doesn't suffice, perhaps I should begin a public self-flagellation? Should I proceed to the blackboard and write "I will not draw unwarranted distinctions" 100 times? Would that satisfy you? Oy Gevalt.

I don't believe I ever stated that "The Kennedy's never believed there was any threat at all". Nor have I said anything close to it. Nor have I anywhere minimized the threat of nuclear war that clearly existed.

A typical lawyer tactic, putting words in someone elses mouth. Nu? :rolleyes:

The Kennedys were very confident that they had an effective response to a destabilizing move by Khruschev. That said, the simple fact that nuclear weapons were involved was the main source of the danger of war. The danger of "general" nuclear warfare was quite real. It is after all the only time the strategic forces of the United States have been brought to the level Defcon 2 (Threat of war considered extremly possible or imminent). However, this threat primarily stemmed from two sources that you either ignore or are unware of:

1)The fact that when hostile Military Forces are at a heightened state of alert and in close proximity, the threat of an accident, or an action being misunderstood, and responded to with force, is greatly increased. It's a concept (quite appropriately, IMO) referred to as "friction". Wars have started over such incidents. If one had occurred during this crisis, it was almost certain to escalate immediately to a tactical, and then strategic nuclear exchange. The naval quarantine ordered by Kennedy was rife with opportunities for "friction".

A clear example of this was the loss of one of Major Rudolph Anderson's U-2 to a Soviet-manned SA-2 SAM battery, which fired without orders. This incident on October 27th threatened to reinflame the crisis which was well on it's way to a peaceful resolution by that point. If we had responded to this action as Gen. Powers urged, by attacking the SAM sites, it would have been a case of US troops attacking Soviet, not Cuban troops. At that point, it's generally accepted a state of war would have existed between the USSR and USA, with Pandora's box sprung wide open.

2)The fact that one of the players in the "game" had suddenly changed the Status Quo with no apparent provocation. Because of this, there was some question in the Kennedy administration as to whether this was a move executed by Khruschev, or if he was "outside of the loop" and it was an independent action by elements in the Soviet Military and/or the KGB. If the latter, the situation would have been considerably more grave than it was.

The second threat was greatly ameliorated by Penkovsky's intelligence. The same source that previously provided our information about the weakness of the Soviet strategic forces. A weakness confirmed by Khruschev's actions, once we were certain it was his "move". Incidentally, Kennedy was fully aware there was no "missile gap" when he spoke about it. That was a lie calculated to increase Congressional and Public support for the Minuteman and Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs.

Perhaps my assumption of your understanding of those points was a bit much to expect from someone relying primarily on Google and Lexis-Nexis for their information. Perfunctory net searches, as opposed to decades of research on the subject from both Soviet and US sources. I apologize for my assumption.

As for your continued harping about "hindsight", I'll ask a simple question. Do you have some information that the Kennedy administration doubted, or indeed had any reason to doubt, Penkovsky's information? After all, it was that vital information that was the primary basis for Kennedy's response. The importance of which you for some reason seem to minimize or ignore. :shrug:

Perhaps you have read something on the subject of Penkovsky's information or about it in the ExComm minutes, or a book about one of the ExComm members that I am unaware of or have forgotten. If so, please enlighten me, as I have a great interest in that subject specifically, and the October Crisis of '62 in general.

Loki
05-07-2006, 10:25 PM
No, now here's my question: Where you a scorned personal boy to one of them? You harbor such blind anger, you know. :hmmm:
wow... great comeback.
:lame:

i assure you the anger is not blind. i've lived in the kennedy neck of the
woods for most of my life and have dealt with watching these f*cktards
break just about every law and get away with it.

personally, i'm sick of it.

* * *

now here's an interesting point for you to ponder comeback king:

in another thread you said you were all for killing criminals who messed
with children. with that point i am with you 100% of the way.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3190541&postcount=30

you stated: For example: I'm not a blind advocate of death penalty. But in case of crime against children, I'm all for it with the condition of having been proven beyond the shadow of the doubt. well it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that michael kennedy
was banging a 14 y/o girl... would you have wanted to see him fry for
that, or would you still be defending him? my guess is that you'd be
letting it slide and still trying to tell me to quit while i'm behind.

hypocrite...


* * * * *
some dead kennedy jokes for the less impressed:

John F. Kennedy: Profiles in Courage.
Michael Kennedy: Profile's in Wood.

People say Michael Kennedy was a rich playboy who did nothing. But in his final moments he made a big impression.

How can you be sure that Michael is really a Kennedy?
Check the family tree.

Yes, Michael Kennedy cheated on his wife and had sex with an underage babysitter. But in the end, he never tried to save face.

Michael's estranged wife Vicki was a bit unhappy. She had to wait an extra week to get her present under the tree.

Where was William Kennedy Smith at the time of the accident??
At the next tree to Michael...raping a knot hole.

Was Michael Kennedy a liberal?
No, he joined a splinter group of the Birch society.

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 10:29 PM
wow... great comeback.
:lame:

i assure you the anger is not blind. i've lived in the kennedy neck of the
woods for most of my life and have dealt with watching these f*cktards
break just about every law and get away with it.

personally, i'm sick of it.

* * *

now here's an interesting point for you to ponder comeback king:

in another thread you said you were all for killing criminals who messed
with children. with that point i am with you 100% of the way.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3190541&postcount=30 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3190541&postcount=30)

you stated:well it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that michael kennedy
was banging a 14 y/o girl... would you have wanted to see him fry for
that, or would you still be defending him? my guess is that you'd be
letting it slide and still trying to tell me to quit while i'm behind.

hypocrite...


* * * * *
some dead kennedy jokes for the less impressed:

John F. Kennedy: Profiles in Courage.
Michael Kennedy: Profile's in Wood.

People say Michael Kennedy was a rich playboy who did nothing. But in his final moments he made a big impression.

How can you be sure that Michael is really a Kennedy?
Check the family tree.

Yes, Michael Kennedy cheated on his wife and had sex with an underage babysitter. But in the end, he never tried to save face.

Michael's estranged wife Vicki was a bit unhappy. She had to wait an extra week to get her present under the tree.

Where was William Kennedy Smith at the time of the accident??
At the next tree to Michael...raping a knot hole.

Was Michael Kennedy a liberal?
No, he joined a splinter group of the Birch society.ROFL Especially the last one.

Can't say I'm a fan of that family, with the exception of JFK and RFK. It's pretty clear to me that even with their failings, those two got all the good genes, and there wasn't much left to spread around.

Here's an oldie but goody. If Ted Kennedy is such a ladies man, why did it take him 8 hours to open Mary Jo Kopechne's car door for her?

CHIEF4EVER
05-07-2006, 10:37 PM
Here's an oldie but goody. If Ted Kennedy is such a ladies man, why did it take him 8 hours to open Mary Jo Kopechne's car door for her?

Because he had some REALLY GOOD scotch.......ROFL

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 10:39 PM
Because he had some REALLY GOOD scotch.......ROFL

ROFL
On that note, I think I'll retire for the evening. Thanks for the guffaw.

Taco John
05-07-2006, 10:51 PM
Why would anyone who voted for George DUI Bush care what goes on with this Kennedy?

Loki
05-07-2006, 10:51 PM
...
If only all of our leaders made sure their intelligence was of that quality before committing our nation to an irrevocable course of action. ;)
...

if only all our leaders didn't:

1. castrate our intelligence services so our nation and subsequent
administrations aren't completely f*cked.

2. take custody of known terrorists who have staged attacks on our
soldiers and civilians abroad when captured and served up on a silver
platter.

3. when refusing to take custody of said known terrorist, don't send
cruise missiles to bomb empty terrorist training camps where known
terrorist was last residing due to castrated intelligence agancies after
finally realizing that said terroist (who could have been getting a$$
raped in federal prison while awaiting a trip to the electric chair) is
actually a threat to the US.
* * *

otherwise, nice post.
:p

Loki
05-07-2006, 10:55 PM
Because he had some REALLY GOOD scotch.......ROFL

err ahh... *hic*
you got dat sh*t right!! *burp*

CHIEF4EVER
05-07-2006, 11:01 PM
Why would anyone who voted for George DUI Bush care what goes on with this Kennedy?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the Kennedy clan is KNOWN for this kind of *hic* misconduct. Or because it happened a few days ago and not TWENTY EIGHT FRIGGIN YEARS AGO. :shrug:

Loki
05-07-2006, 11:07 PM
Sure, if he plans on running 22 years from now. The one thing in his favor is that he didn't drown his mistress on thaht theah ehhhh Chappaquiddick Bridge ehhhh.

errr ahh... now you too can play like a kennedy!
http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/gift_kennedy.jpg

CHIEF4EVER
05-07-2006, 11:11 PM
errr ahh... now you too can play like a kennedy!
http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/gift_kennedy.jpg


ROFL Rep.

Taco John
05-07-2006, 11:11 PM
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the Kennedy clan is KNOWN for this kind of *hic* misconduct. Or because it happened a few days ago and not TWENTY EIGHT FRIGGIN YEARS AGO. :shrug:


The Bush clan isn't known for this kind of conduct? Aside from DUI and drugs, the Bush clan is known for Savings and Loan scandals and connections to the Bin Ladin family.

Some of you folks need to get a grip. I can't imagine how this thread got to be so long, considering the fact that half the people here rejoicing in this man's misery voted for a guy who himself got a DUI.

CHIEF4EVER
05-07-2006, 11:16 PM
The Bush clan isn't known for this kind of conduct? Aside from DUI and drugs, the Bush clan is known for Savings and Loan scandals and connections to the Bin Ladin family.

Some of you folks need to get a grip. I can't imagine how this thread got to be so long, considering the fact that half the people here rejoicing in this man's misery voted for a guy who himself got a DUI.

Don't even get me started on the Kennedys. Heck, it all started with the bootleggin nazi granddaddy, and continued on through the DUI murderer that continues to be in the Senate and culminates in the DUI Representative that almost kills a cop with his "I'm late for a vote" escapade. Give me a break Teej.

banyon
05-07-2006, 11:27 PM
Don't even get me started on the Kennedys. Heck, it all started with the bootleggin nazi granddaddy, and continued on through the DUI murderer that continues to be in the Senate and culminates in the DUI Representative that almost kills a cop with his "I'm late for a vote" escapade. Give me a break Teej.


So you don't like DUI's, but Bush gets a pass?

Loki
05-07-2006, 11:40 PM
The Bush clan isn't known for this kind of conduct? Aside from DUI and drugs, the Bush clan is known for Savings and Loan scandals and connections to the Bin Ladin family.

Some of you folks need to get a grip. I can't imagine how this thread got to be so long, considering the fact that half the people here rejoicing in this man's misery voted for a guy who himself got a DUI.

kennedy senior:
sold arms to hitler
bootlegged liquor during prohibition,
had ties to organized crime
adultery
had daughter (rosemary) lobotomized because she was an
"embarassment" to the family

jfk:
dui in the navy
had affair with marilyn monroe
took LSD while in office (not completely sure of this claim)
had ties to irish and italian mafia

ted:
drowned mary jo driving drunk
dui

joe II:
adultry
spouse/child abuse

jospeh:
posession of illegal fireworks. blew his kid's hand off while drunk and
playing with fireworks.

patrick:
busted for coccaine as a minor
dui

michael:
had affair with underaged girl

william:
rape

david:
OD'ed and died

bobby jr:
posession narcotics as a juvenile
OD'ed on heroin on an airplane, arrested (later released... gee wonder why?) upon landing.

* * * * * * * * *

yes taco... striking similarities between the bush and kennedy families. :rolleyes:

get a grip?

consider yourself a total sucker if you think patrick's staged "woe is
me... i'm in pain" press conferences are the epitome of "misery". his
only misery stems from the fact that he was CAUGHT. the dude has
been messing with drugs and boozing since he was a teenager...
he made his choices, now he should pay the price like you or i would
for drinking and driving.

f*ck his privledges... he's had it far too good for far too long. :shake:

CHIEF4EVER
05-07-2006, 11:47 PM
So you don't like DUI's, but Bush gets a pass?

That's not what I was saying and you know it. Don't put words in my mouth. I was pointing out to TJ that his equating the Kennedys with the Bush family is downright ludicrous at best.

banyon
05-07-2006, 11:49 PM
(detailed listing of kennedy family connections and troubles..)f*ck his privledges... he's had it far too good for far too long. :shake:
I'll leave this for Taco, but

All too easy...

banyon
05-07-2006, 11:52 PM
That's not what I was saying and you know it. Don't put words in my mouth. I was pointing out to TJ that his equating the Kennedys with the Bush family is downright ludicrous at best.

why, lack of drug use? No alcohol impairments? No Shadowy connections to despicable elements of society?

I don't think I know what you are saying.

CHIEF4EVER
05-07-2006, 11:56 PM
Silly me, I should have known that the Lib Dem double standard applied here. Bush could cut a SBD fart and be castigated for it but a Dem can slap a DC cop, get a DUI and almost KILL a cop and it is no big deal. What a bunch of hypocrites.

CHIEF4EVER
05-07-2006, 11:59 PM
why, lack of drug use? No alcohol impairments? No Shadowy connections to despicable elements of society?

I don't think I know what you are saying.

Oh, I think you do. Quit spinning. Bush is a friggin choir boy compared to the Kennedys.

banyon
05-08-2006, 12:02 AM
Silly me, I should have known that the Lib Dem double standard applied here. Bush could cut a SBD fart and be castigated for it but a Dem can slap a DC cop, get a DUI and almost KILL a cop and it is no big deal. What a bunch of hypocrites.


I'm assuming you don't know who Vannevar Bush is.

*edit* Or Samuel P. Bush.

CHIEF4EVER
05-08-2006, 12:09 AM
I'm assuming you don't know who Vannevar Bush is.

*edit* Or Samuel P. Bush.

I'm assuming you don't know who Kennedy sr, or Ted or Joe jr, or joseph or michael or patrick or william or david or bobby jr are.

Loki
05-08-2006, 12:52 AM
I'll leave this for Taco, but

All too easy...huh?
wtf is your point?

if all you have is star wars pictures perhaps it's best that you DO leave
it for TJ...
:bong:

Loki
05-08-2006, 01:01 AM
Silly me, I should have known that the Lib Dem double standard applied here. Bush could cut a SBD fart and be castigated for it but a Dem can slap a DC cop, get a DUI and almost KILL a cop and it is no big deal. What a bunch of hypocrites.

no doubt.

"but but but bush did this and bush did that
and and and...."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40612000/jpg/_40612765_michael_moore_ap300.jpg

Taco John
05-08-2006, 01:29 AM
Give YOU a break? You voted for a president who got arrested for DUI. You're telling me that he didn't put people in danger? Don't get you started on the Kennedy's? I couldn't be more bored. WTF do I care what you think of the Kennedys? I could care less about them...

I'm just commenting on the stupidity of people who voted for George DUI Bush, and cant stop giggling to the world that some nobody Kennedy got arrested for the same thing recently.

Hey, for what it's worth, I could care less that you take a hypocritical stance on this. I'm just curious if you're aware that you're being hypocritical, or if it just comes natural.

Taco John
05-08-2006, 01:33 AM
consider yourself a total sucker if you think patrick's staged "woe is
me... i'm in pain" press conferences are the epitome of "misery". his
only misery stems from the fact that he was CAUGHT. the dude has
been messing with drugs and boozing since he was a teenager...
he made his choices, now he should pay the price like you or i would
for drinking and driving.

f*ck his privledges... he's had it far too good for far too long. :shake:


Pay the price? Sounds like he's just the guy to win your vote, all he needs to do is pretend he's converted to Christianity.

Loki
05-08-2006, 01:42 AM
You voted for a president who got arrested for DUI.
you know this for fact?
WRONG.

i didn't vote at all.

so take your ASSumptions and ...

Loki
05-08-2006, 01:51 AM
Pay the price? Sounds like he's just the guy to win your vote, all he needs to do is pretend he's converted to Christianity.
must be TJ ASSumption night. 0 for 2 - wrong again.

i gave up organized religion years ago after dealing with catholic school.
ended up with too many questions without any answers in religion class.
their idea of getting me to think about the answers to my questions was
sending me to the principal's office for punishment. f*ck that sh*t!

you seriously think that you or i would have even been able to drive
home to have a press conference the next day like this clown did?
you or i would have been huffing on the breathalyzer and hauled off
to jail within a matter of minutes.
unless, of course, you have a dad or uncle named teddy...

err... ahh... let my taco GO!
http://www.evote.com/evotepix/events/demconvention2000/sen_ted_kennedy_of_ma_speech.jpg

CHIEF4EVER
05-08-2006, 01:52 AM
Give YOU a break? You voted for a president who got arrested for DUI.

You have no earthly idea WHO I voted for.

You're telling me that he didn't put people in danger? Don't get you started on the Kennedy's? I couldn't be more bored. WTF do I care what you think of the Kennedys? I could care less about them...

Yet you chime in when a Dem is being ridiculed for the same things you libs sling mud at the cons for. Hell, a day doesn't go by that you don't have something nasty to say about the President no matter HOW trivial. Can you say hypocrisy? C'mon TJ, say it with me.

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 03:52 AM
ROFL
I wish you'd put a 3rd condition there so maybe I could say "one out of three ain't bad!"

Do you remember where you were the day of the Kennedy assasination? I do. And please post the titles of the books and reports that you have read so we all could follow your path to ultimate knowledge. :rolleyes:

I know exactly where I was when JFK was murdered. I honestly doubt you are old enough to remember much from that time. In diapers doesn't count for collective rememberance.

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 03:55 AM
Why would anyone who voted for George DUI Bush care what goes on with this Kennedy?


How about more than one DUI for kennedy? How about substance abuses as well.

George didn't kill anyone when he got his DUI and just in case you've forgotten it was long ago and he is a recovering alcoholic unlike the kennedy clan who are continually practicing alcoholics.

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 03:57 AM
The Bush clan isn't known for this kind of conduct? Aside from DUI and drugs, the Bush clan is known for Savings and Loan scandals and connections to the Bin Ladin family.

Some of you folks need to get a grip. I can't imagine how this thread got to be so long, considering the fact that half the people here rejoicing in this man's misery voted for a guy who himself got a DUI.

What about the connections of those in the democratic party?

You seem to be grasping at straws. You are just another liberal fanatic that does not like anything to do with the republican side of the country.

Auld Lang Syne
05-08-2006, 03:58 AM
So you don't like DUI's, but Bush gets a pass?

It seems like the DUI situation played out in the elections. I guess it's always a good reach back when nothing else is working.

Adept Havelock
05-08-2006, 06:44 AM
ALS-

I'm still awaiting your assuredly learned rebuttal to my response to your post in post #74. :Poke:

As it would seemingly require a post with more substance than a dismissive sound bite, I won't hold my breath.;)

patteeu
05-08-2006, 07:11 AM
I believe I already apologized for my unwarranted distinction. As that apparently doesn't suffice, perhaps I should begin a public self-flagellation? Should I proceed to the blackboard and write "I will not draw unwarranted distinctions" 100 times? Would that satisfy you? Oy Gevalt.

You edited your post after I quoted it. I'm satisfied with your apology so there's no need to resort to the dramatics.

I don't believe I ever stated that "The Kennedy's never believed there was any threat at all". Nor have I said anything close to it. Nor have I anywhere minimized the threat of nuclear war that clearly existed.

A typical lawyer tactic, putting words in someone elses mouth. Nu? :rolleyes:

The Kennedys were very confident that they had an effective response to a destabilizing move by Khruschev. That said, the simple fact that nuclear weapons were involved was the main source of the danger of war. The danger of "general" nuclear warfare was quite real. It is after all the only time the strategic forces of the United States have been brought to the level Defcon 2 (Threat of war considered extremly possible or imminent). However, this threat primarily stemmed from two sources that you either ignore or are unware of:

1)The fact that when hostile Military Forces are at a heightened state of alert and in close proximity, the threat of an accident, or an action being misunderstood, and responded to with force, is greatly increased. It's a concept (quite appropriately, IMO) referred to as "friction". Wars have started over such incidents. If one had occurred during this crisis, it was almost certain to escalate immediately to a tactical, and then strategic nuclear exchange. The naval quarantine ordered by Kennedy was rife with opportunities for "friction".

A clear example of this was the loss of one of Major Rudolph Anderson's U-2 to a Soviet-manned SA-2 SAM battery, which fired without orders. This incident on October 27th threatened to reinflame the crisis which was well on it's way to a peaceful resolution by that point. If we had responded to this action as Gen. Powers urged, by attacking the SAM sites, it would have been a case of US troops attacking Soviet, not Cuban troops. At that point, it's generally accepted a state of war would have existed between the USSR and USA, with Pandora's box sprung wide open.

2)The fact that one of the players in the "game" had suddenly changed the Status Quo with no apparent provocation. Because of this, there was some question in the Kennedy administration as to whether this was a move executed by Khruschev, or if he was "outside of the loop" and it was an independent action by elements in the Soviet Military and/or the KGB. If the latter, the situation would have been considerably more grave than it was.

The second threat was greatly ameliorated by Penkovsky's intelligence. The same source that previously provided our information about the weakness of the Soviet strategic forces. A weakness confirmed by Khruschev's actions, once we were certain it was his "move". Incidentally, Kennedy was fully aware there was no "missile gap" when he spoke about it. That was a lie calculated to increase Congressional and Public support for the Minuteman and Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs.

Perhaps my assumption of your understanding of those points was a bit much to expect from someone relying primarily on Google and Lexis-Nexis for their information. Perfunctory net searches, as opposed to decades of research on the subject from both Soviet and US sources. I apologize for my assumption.

I have no need for your insincere apology. I've already admitted that you are quite likely to know much more about these details than I do. Of course that does you no good if your command of the facts doesn't support your arguments.

You try to pretend there is no difference between the clarity and certainty that Kennedy had at the time and that which you are afforded by 40+ years of hindsight, but OTOH, you admit that they couldn't have had that clarity or that certainty because there was a real threat of a nuclear exchange. None of your details about why this threat existed or why they had reason to be confident change the fundamental disconnect between these two positions.

As for your continued harping about "hindsight", I'll ask a simple question. Do you have some information that the Kennedy administration doubted, or indeed had any reason to doubt, Penkovsky's information? After all, it was that vital information that was the primary basis for Kennedy's response. The importance of which you for some reason seem to minimize or ignore. :shrug:

Perhaps you have read something on the subject of Penkovsky's information or about it in the ExComm minutes, or a book about one of the ExComm members that I am unaware of or have forgotten. If so, please enlighten me, as I have a great interest in that subject specifically, and the October Crisis of '62 in general.

I've learned everything I know about the Penkovsky intelligence from you in this thread. In between your :rolleyes: smilies, I've found much of what you've written about this crisis quite interesting.

The difference between Kennedy's perception of the Penkovsky information and yours is that you have the benefit of knowing based on 40+ years of history and the ability to review documents from both sides of the conflict that the information was (presumably) essentially accurate. At the time, they may have had some corroborating information that led them to have confidence in it, but as with all intelligence, they couldn't have been certain.

banyon
05-08-2006, 08:59 AM
What about the connections of those in the democratic party?

You seem to be grasping at straws. You are just another liberal fanatic that does not like anything to do with the republican side of the country.


It seems like the DUI situation played out in the elections. I guess it's always a good reach back when nothing else is working.

:hmmm:

little substance, baiting tactics....first post date of 5/02/06....

I wonder whose new username this could be...

Logical
05-08-2006, 12:17 PM
...
Your hero was also out joy riding bombed out of his skull on booze (typical for a Kennedy), when he crashed his PT109, thanks to his daddy he turned that little incident into a plus.

I am definitely no JFK fan, but this is the first I have heard of this, do you have link to provide some foundation to this story?

jAZ
05-08-2006, 12:31 PM
unless, of course, you have a dad or uncle named teddy...

err... ahh... let my taco GO!
http://www.evote.com/evotepix/events/demconvention2000/sen_ted_kennedy_of_ma_speech.jpg
I think it's fair to assume that any congressman would have a good chance of getting similar treatment. Wealth & power have benefits.

Logical
05-08-2006, 12:41 PM
:rolleyes:
By the numbers:

1)Kennedy continued the policy of providing military advisors to the ARVN which began under the Eisenhower administration. Combat troops and authorization for offensive operations were not sent/given until early 1965. Greater detail is given in my response to redbrian above. Kennedy also greatly increased the Special Warfare capabilities of the Military, especially ordering the USN to create the first SEAL teams on the foundation of the UDT and Scouts and Raiders organizations. Do you condemn him for that as well?

2)As for "almost single handedly initiating WWIII". Really? :hmmm:

Funny, I always thought it was Nikita Khrushchev who authorized the deployment of SS-4 and SS-5 IRBM's and FROG tactical missiles (with launch authority given to the commander on the scene for the first time ever) to Cuba. I was fully unaware Kennedy had the authority to order the deployment of Soviet Missiles.

In truth, JFK and his EXCOMM (the predecessor to the modern NSC) were thankfully intelligent enough to find the only option that would have avoided WWIII.

If we had acquised, the Soviet build-up would have continued, and the Soviets would have been emboldened to act even more aggressively, perhaps in Europe.

If we had ordered airstrikes and an invasion, as some on the JCOS were calling for (primarily the idiot commander of SAC, Gen. Powers), our troops would have been vaporized on the beachhead by the FROG's mentioned above. The local commander had launch authority, and wouldn't have had to get orders from Moscow. Furthermore, the few SS-4's and SS-5's that were operational would have been fired. You could then blame JFK for losing Washington, possibly NY, and a number of other cities I suppose.

On the "plus" side, the USSR would have been utterly anihilated. On the "minus" side, the world would likely have seen it as the US striking first. The difference in our response compared to what the Soviet's could have fielded would have been massive. We would have lost a few cities, but their nation would have ceased to exist. Years later, that would have been what people thought of when the word "Holocaust" was used, IMO. Again, a holocaust the world would likely see us (accurately or not) as starting.

The Blockade option chosen allowed both sides to save face. JFK's agreement to remove the obsolete Jupiter missiles from SE Europe several months after the crisis removed the threat the concerned Khruschev the most, removing the reason for his IRBM deployment to Cuba. The delay prevented the move from being seen as "appeasement" or a "quid pro quo" move which could have been used for propaganda purposes by the Soviet Union. Again, a very shrewd move.

The blockade option was chosen primarily because JFK had intelligence from a Colonel in the Soviet GRU (Col. Oleg Penkovsky) who informed us that our strategic forces vastly outnumbered what the Soviets could field. Tragically, Col. Penkovsky was caught a number of years later, and thrown alive into a furnace by the GRU for his betrayal.

ALS, How do you believe JFK should have responded? By igniting WW3, or should he have become another Neville Chamberlain?

3)The Bay of Pigs was a multi-administration foul up. Planning, training and buildup was begun by the CIA under Eisenhower. Kennedy's mistakes were twofold. 1)Allowing it to go forward (IMO because of complaints from the Right he was "soft on communism"). 2)After it had gone forward, withholding critical air support for the Cuban insurgents.

As for "what would have happened if he hadn't been killed"? Odds are that the Khruschev-Kennedy summits scheduled for 1964 would have had a good chance of giving the world detente' a decade sooner, or possibly Glastnost decades sooner. Both JFK and Khruschev had looked into the abyss, and found their way back by that point. Both (at least from their own writings and statements) seemed serious about the notion of arms reduction. It remains to be seen if the political climates within the hawkish elements of either nation would have allowed such a rapprochment, however.


To amend your previous post:

Apparently you are not well read, but then if you are a republican I'm sure that your observations of history might have taken on a slant towards your party.

Consider me eagerly awaiting your learned rebuttal, ALS.

Being a conservative on the issues under discussion I pretty much agree with this assessment. You kind of glossed over leaving the Cuban immigrants hanging out to dry in the Bay of Pigs incident and your post death scenario had he lived seems a little biased but you do leave some room for doubt though blaming it on the hawks (which you did not mention were as plentiful among Dems as Reps in those days) but a nice summary.

Taco John
05-08-2006, 03:20 PM
What about the connections of those in the democratic party?

You seem to be grasping at straws. You are just another liberal fanatic that does not like anything to do with the republican side of the country.



Actually, I'm not grasping at straws at all, Tom.

the Talking Can
05-08-2006, 03:28 PM
Tom.


o no he didunt....

Loki
05-08-2006, 07:36 PM
I think it's fair to assume that any congressman would have a good chance of getting similar treatment. Wealth & power have benefits.

assume away... and i don't doubt it.

however, i will still maintain that the kennedy's are the most f*cked up
of all.

Loki
05-08-2006, 07:51 PM
I am definitely no JFK fan, but this is the first I have heard of this, do you have link to provide some foundation to this story?
i have no link, but i did read a book about his exploits in the navy a long
time ago.

in the book it said he was sh*tfaced, was racing another PT boat back
to the base and crashed his boat into the docks. from that incident he
earned the nickname "crash" kennedy.

* * * * *

this link somewhat describes the incident, but doesn't mention the
sh*tfaced part, or the fact that he was raing another boat back to
base. (at the very least it does confirm the nickname)
i wish i could remember the name of the book i read. (it was a long long
time ago)
http://home.sandiego.edu/~lallard/college.html
halfway through paragraph below grad picture.


http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/warhero.htm
Jack's PT 109 was at first a dirty, bug infested boat in need of repairs. Jack and his crew cleaned and painted the boat while mechanics fixed the engines and hull. PT 109 then went on night training patrols. Returning from patrols, Jack and the others often raced their boats back into the dock. On one occasion, Jack couldn't stop PT 109, crashed into the dock and earned a temporary new nickname, "Crash" Kennedy.

Frankie
05-08-2006, 07:54 PM
i have no link, but i did read a book about his exploits in the navy a long
time ago.

in the book it said he was sh*tfaced, was racing another PT boat back
to the base and crashed his boat into the docks. from that incident he
earned the nickname "crash" kennedy.

* * * * *

this link somewhat describes the incident, but doesn't mention the
sh*tfaced part, or the fact that he was raing another boat back to
base. (at the very least it does confirm the nickname)
i wish i could remember the name of the book i read. (it was a long long
time ago)
http://home.sandiego.edu/~lallard/college.html
halfway through paragraph below grad picture.
I read a book years ago about a genie that came out of a bottle in a puff of smoke. I don't have a link for it either. :hmmm:

Loki
05-08-2006, 07:58 PM
I read a book years ago about a genie that came out of a bottle in a puff of smoke. I don't have a link for it either. :hmmm:
have a point? keep trying flunkie... maybe someday you'll make sense.

in the meantime, why don't you follow the link(s) i did post.

Frankie
05-08-2006, 08:08 PM
have a point? keep trying flunkie... maybe someday you'll make sense.

in the meantime, why don't you follow the link i did post.
The Kennedy's have a lot of wild unrully stuff about them. Womanizing? Drinking? We all know those. But for all their vices, their resumes show that they have done some good too. Which is a hell of a lot better type of resume than an druggy, drunk, who has run a couple of companies his daddy fixed up for him to the ground with his abject incompetence before doing the same to. the whole country. Oh I forgot. He's no longer any of those, because he found RELIGION!!

stevieray
05-08-2006, 08:12 PM
have a point?


He's just playing the victim card, only this time, he puts the whole country on the cross with him.

Frankie
05-08-2006, 08:17 PM
He's just playing the victim card, only this time, he puts the whole country on the cross with him.
Why was I waiting for this. ROFL I read you like a book Stevie. I'm sure you don't want to elaborate on the debate's subject. Not your fault. It takes substance and actually having read something in addition to the old testament.

stevieray
05-08-2006, 08:25 PM
Why was I waiting for this. ROFL I read you like a book Stevie. I'm sure you don't want to elaborate on the debate's subject. Not your fault. It takes substance and actually having read something in addition to the old testament.

You're overcompensating again...does that come from patting yourself on the back?

What is there to debate? people make mistakes, you are the only one whose judgement is based on party affiliation. You might want to address that Daddy issue you keep projecting onto Bush.

Adept Havelock
05-08-2006, 08:28 PM
You try to pretend there is no difference between the clarity and certainty that Kennedy had at the time and that which you are afforded by 40+ years of hindsight, but OTOH, you admit that they couldn't have had that clarity or that certainty because there was a real threat of a nuclear exchange. None of your details about why this threat existed or why they had reason to be confident change the fundamental disconnect between these two positions.
Looking back, I think I've made it clear that there were some uncertanties on both sides at the time of the crisis. Allow me to clarify my point as I fail to see the "disconnect" you speak of. Forgive me if I cover territory I've already visited, and I'll attempt to be concise.

Due to unprecedented intelligence, inherited from the Eisenhower administration, and repeatedly verified as the highest placed and most reliable source the US ever had, the Kennedy's decision to blockade was reached quite quickly. This, once they were assured that it was Khruschev's decision to deploy the missiles, and not a "rogue" operation. The Kennedy's were confident that Khruschev, being a rational actor, would not purposefully ignite a war certain to wipe out his nation. His own deployment of missiles showed that he was aware of his nations strategic inferiority, which the Cuban deployment was an obvious attempt to redress. This is made clear by many statements in the ExComm minutes and their own, and other principals, writings on the subject.

Kennedy, being a rational actor, realized that neither appeasement nor invasion were options, as both were likely to lead to general war in the near or immediate future. Due to the nature of Soviet politics they had to find an middle-ground option that allowed Khruschev to "save face" with his own government. Hence the decision to declare a quarantine, and later, the back-alley agreement on the Jupiter missiles. This course of action was chosen by Kennedy with great confidence that this was the best possible option for a peaceful resolution.

Were they "absolutely" certain? Were they as certain as I am with the benefit of 40+ years of historical analysis, and both sides "playbook"? Of course not. However, based on the combined factors mentioned above they were very confident of success with their chosen course of action.

At the same time, both sides have acknowledged the fact that having so many hostile planes, ships, missiles, and subs in close proximity at high alert was incredibly dangerous, due to friction. The loss of the U-2 and a couple of other minor naval incidents, the untimely missile test from Vandenburg, and an (accidental?) incursion by a U-2 over the USSR itself during this period illustrate this. It was this friction more than any other factor that made the crisis so grave.

This is why the most dangerous period during the crisis is seen as the period during which and after the ships en route to Cuba were turned, but before Khruschev announced his intent to withdrawl the missiles. It was during this period that the U-2 and naval incidents occurred. Also, the Jupiter missile agreement which may have brought the balance back to the middle.

Friction is the primary reason the threat of nuclear war was so grave. This friction existed concurrently with the Kennedy administration's high level of "clarity and certainty" that blockade/quarantine would lead to a Soviet "fold" in the nuclear poker game. As it thankfully did.



On a side note, without that "certainty", I personally have no doubt that Kennedy, the JCOS, and Gen. Powers of SAC would have orchestrated a devastating pre-emptive first strike of the "counter-force" variety, in an attempt to minimize damage to the United States and limit population losses in the USSR. If there was a certainty that invasion/airstrikes would have been the only or best option, I can see little other alternative for that administration. Especially in light of 1) The knowledge that airstrikes on USSR SAM and IRBM sites in Cuba would lead to general war, and 2)the massive US Strategic Superiority. In an all out exchange in 1962, we were quite certain that while we would be bloodied, the USSR would be obliterated. IMO, and in this situation, this course was likely in spite of US statements that "first strikes" have never been contemplated as a part of strategic nuclear policy.

I most certainly would oppose that course of action, in favor of MAD, with one qualifier. At that point,a blanket statement would need to have been issued to the effect of "any further nuclear deployments by the USSR outside of it's own territory will be viewed as an act of war by the US". If we would have had to accept the Cuban deployment, a line would have had to be drawn.

That said, I will gladly admit I do have serious doubts we would be here to have this conversation if the latter chain of events had occurred. If Khruschev had been insisted on keeping the Missiles in Cuba, I think a general nuclear war would have been almost inevitable, regardless of our actions.

It's always fun tumbling around a subject with you Patteeu. You're a damn good sparring partner. That, and my BP is low enough to be a cause for concern so it's good to have someone around who can kick it up a notch now and again. That is, when we get around and/or over being condescending to each other. Again, I apologize (sincerely this time) for my part in that. Thanks for your kind words in the rep. :thumb:

patteeu
05-08-2006, 09:03 PM
Thanks for the Cuban Missile Crisis education you've given me in this thread, Adept. It was quite interesting. And as I think I said in that rep comment, I do enjoy reading your posts. :)

Frankie
05-08-2006, 09:10 PM
You're overcompensating again...does that come from patting yourself on the back?

What is there to debate? people make mistakes, you are the only one whose judgement is based on party affiliation. You might want to address that Daddy issue you keep projecting onto Bush.
Deflection alert!!!

You know full well you've been coming out of the bushes for one liner hit and run type, non-constructive reaction posts to many of my posts. Never willing to elaborate, continue or clarify what your point is. I have only to conclude that you have no substance, nor have accumulated any worldly knowledge beyond possibly the Chiefs and your interpressions of the Bible. If this is playing "the victim card" as you keep repeating (in the wrong context too), so be it.

stevieray
05-08-2006, 09:24 PM
Deflection alert!!!

You know full well you've been coming out of the bushes for one liner hit and run type, non-constructive reaction posts to many of my posts. Never willing to elaborate, continue or clarify what your point is. I have only to conclude that you have no substance, nor have accumulated any worldly knowledge beyond possibly the Chiefs and your interpressions of the Bible. If this is playing "the victim card" as you keep repeating (in the wrong context too), so be it.

Frankie, why do you keep avoiding the questions?

Again, what is there to debate? I don't think there is one, and I think that only debate for you is comparing the mistakes, and then arguing over whose mistake is worse, while in realty, you are just using the past and present poor decisions made by public figures, so you can keep contributing to our political polarization, and continue with your us against them mantra.

If there is any debate, it's whether or not the country has ever recovered or grown past the JFK assassination.

Frankie
05-08-2006, 09:30 PM
Frankie, why do you keep avoiding the questions?

Again, what is there to debate? I don't think there is one, and I think that only debate for you is comparing the mistakes, and then arguing over whose mistake is worse, while in realty, you are just using the past and present poor decisions made by public figures so you can keep contributing to our political polarization, and continue with your us against them mantra.

If there is any debate, it's whether or not the country has ever recovered or grown past the JFK assassination.
Wow. An elaboration, finally. I'm proud of you Stevie. I gotta get to a free enough time to go searching for the several times recently that I cordially told you that I would love to discuss what you insinuated or accused me of in a proper thread. But I never heard your reply.

Adept Havelock
05-08-2006, 09:36 PM
If there is any debate, it's whether or not the country has ever recovered or grown past the JFK assassination.That's a pretty compelling idea you've got there. I always chalked up the resurgance of "us against them" to either FDR's 4 consecutive terms, or possibly the "Red Scare" era of the early 50's. In hindsight, I should have examined the assassinations of JFK, as well as RFK and MLK as a primary cause, as opposed to a symptom, which has been my view.

You've given me something pretty damn interesting to chew on. :hmmm:

Thank you!

stevieray
05-08-2006, 09:43 PM
Wow. An elaboration, finally. I'm proud of you Stevie. I gotta get to a free enough time to go searching for the several times recently that I cordially told you that I would love to discuss what you insinuated or accused me of in a proper thread. But I never heard your reply.

Let's see it.

go bowe
05-08-2006, 09:43 PM
Deflection alert!!!

You know full well you've been coming out of the bushes for one liner hit and run type, non-constructive reaction posts to many of my posts. Never willing to elaborate, continue or clarify what your point is. I have only to conclude that you have no substance, nor have accumulated any worldly knowledge beyond possibly the Chiefs and your interpressions of the Bible. If this is playing "the victim card" as you keep repeating (in the wrong context too), so be it. coming out of the bushes?

no worldly knowledge?

you're not talkin' 'bout stevie, not the real stevie... :shake: :shake: :shake:

fwiw, i don't know the difference between victim card and deflection...

i see both of them hurled around a lot, but i don't always quite understand how they apply to any particular situation...

nttawwt...

stevieray
05-08-2006, 09:44 PM
That's a pretty compelling idea you've got there. I always chalked up the resurgance of "us against them" to either FDR's 4 consecutive terms, or possibly the "Red Scare" era of the early 50's. In hindsight, I should have examined the assassinations of JFK, as well as RFK and MLK as a primary cause, as opposed to a symptom, which has been my view.

You've given me something pretty damn interesting to chew on. :hmmm:

Thank you!

:)

Loki
05-09-2006, 06:52 AM
The Kennedy's have a lot of wild unrully stuff about them. Womanizing? Drinking? We all know those. But for all their vices, their resumes show that they have done some good too. Which is a hell of a lot better type of resume than an druggy, drunk, who has run a couple of companies his daddy fixed up for him to the ground with his abject incompetence before doing the same to. the whole country. Oh I forgot. He's no longer any of those, because he found RELIGION!!

even today good old patrick isn't relying on papi teddy's strings...
nope, he's his own man, and taking responsibility for his actions...
just like his father before him.

yeah... the kennedy's fathers NEVER influenced outcomes of their
childrens shortcoming, brushes with the law etc etc etc.


you're so right flunkie... only bush daddies do that sort of thing!

let's see, kennedy's doing some good...
nazi sympathizing. check - that's a good thing.
bootlegging booze during prohibition. check - that's a good thing.
ties to organized crime. check - that's a good thing.

- you keep trying to ram the bushes faults down our throats and none
of us are overlooking them.
- you keep trying to brush off all the horrible things the kennedy's have
done by saying the bush family is worse (sorry but THAT ratio is NEVER
going to be in your favor).
- you also keep trying to point out that the kennedy family has done
such wonderful things for humanity but have yet to list ONE of
these so called "wonderful things".

if you want to go there and dismiss all the kennedy shortcomings, then
perhaps we can say the bush family has done all sorts of wonderful
things for humanity as well... right?

and you accuse me of "blind hatred".. take a look in the mirror stud. :shake:

when are you going to realize you're nothing but a big friggin' hypocrite?

Loki
05-09-2006, 06:54 AM
He's just playing the victim card, only this time, he puts the whole country on the cross with him.
such a selfless act. he must be a kennedy! :rolleyes:

Loki
05-09-2006, 07:00 AM
...
At the same time, both sides have acknowledged the fact that having so many hostile planes, ships, missiles, and subs in close proximity at high alert was incredibly dangerous, due to friction. The loss of the U-2 and a couple of other minor naval incidents, the untimely missile test from Vandenburg, and an (accidental?) incursion by a U-2 over the USSR itself during this period illustrate this. It was this friction more than any other factor that made the crisis so grave.
This is why the most dangerous period during the crisis is seen as the period during which and after the ships en route to Cuba were turned, but before Khruschev announced his intent to withdrawl the missiles. It was during this period that the U-2 and naval incidents occurred. Also, the Jupiter missile agreement which may have brought the balance back to the middle.
...


AH,

i have often wondered if the U2 had been served up to the russians in
attempts to help Khruschev save some more face with his government.

the timing couldn't have been more of a feather in the russians cap IMO.

what is your take on that?

Frankie
05-09-2006, 10:04 AM
even today good old patrick isn't relying on papi teddy's strings...
nope, he's his own man, and taking responsibility for his actions...
just like his father before him.

yeah... the kennedy's fathers NEVER influenced outcomes of their
childrens shortcoming, brushes with the law etc etc etc.


you're so right flunkie... only bush daddies do that sort of thing!

let's see, kennedy's doing some good...
nazi sympathizing. check - that's a good thing.
bootlegging booze during prohibition. check - that's a good thing.
ties to organized crime. check - that's a good thing.

- you keep trying to ram the bushes faults down our throats and none
of us are overlooking them.
- you keep trying to brush off all the horrible things the kennedy's have
done by saying the bush family is worse (sorry but THAT ratio is NEVER
going to be in your favor).
- you also keep trying to point out that the kennedy family has done
such wonderful things for humanity but have yet to list ONE of
these so called "wonderful things".

if you want to go there and dismiss all the kennedy shortcomings, then
perhaps we can say the bush family has done all sorts of wonderful
things for humanity as well... right?

and you accuse me of "blind hatred".. take a look in the mirror stud. :shake:

when are you going to realize you're nothing but a big friggin' hypocrite?
ey when you bring up things like Nazi sypathizing allegations, make sure to check Big George's dad's contributions to the Hitler war machine. Might prevent you from posting things that make you look foolish. However I won't get into rehashing all the stuff we went over two years ago. This is my big diference etween the (spoiled) children of the two families. The Massachusett ones are on the record having done some very good thigs to benfit the less priviledged. To this day I cannot single out one thing that the Texas ones have done that did not have their own personal benefit as the goal. End of the story and my participation in this (by now) useless debate.

Auld Lang Syne
05-09-2006, 10:40 AM
ey when you bring up things like Nazi sypathizing allegations, make sure to check Big George's dad's contributions to the Hitler war machine. Might prevent you from posting things that make you look foolish. However I won't get into rehashing all the stuff we went over two years ago. This is my big diference etween the (spoiled) children of the two families. The Massachusett ones are on the record having done some very good thigs to benfit the less priviledged. To this day I cannot single out one thing that the Texas ones have done that did not have their own personal benefit as the goal. End of the story and my participation in this (by now) useless debate.

You do know that GHWB was a Naval Aviator in the Pacific during WWII don't you?

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq10-1.htm

go bowe
05-09-2006, 01:36 PM
i think he's referring to ghwb's father...

Baby Lee
05-09-2006, 01:49 PM
i think he's referring to ghwb's father...
I think he's referring to Frankie not being able to think of one good 'thig' the Bushes have done.

Auld Lang Syne
05-09-2006, 01:54 PM
i think he's referring to ghwb's father...

I checked the reference to the membership, there are many members found listed. What is interesting is that only one of the members has any annotations next to their name that has to do with anything but the secret society. That comment is next to Prescot Bush's name. The inclusion of a single comment on a list of 2334, that is followed by a secondary list with a few of the same names on it, tends to disqualify the validity of the comment.

Me thinks hamms is just making an attempt, any attempt to soil the name of the presidents family. That alone shouldn't surprise anyone here.

http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/skullbones.html

Frankie
05-09-2006, 02:25 PM
i think he's referring to ghwb's father...
Right you are sir. But you have at least normal IQ.

Auld Lang Syne
05-09-2006, 02:27 PM
Right you are sir. But you have at least normal IQ.

Check the link. Anyone can see that it is not an official list and has been editorialized.

Where is your credible link? Still waiting.

go bowe
05-09-2006, 02:34 PM
I think he's referring to Frankie not being able to think of one good 'thig' the Bushes have done.well i can think of a thig the bushes have done...

president george hw bush joined together with president clinton to raise money for the tsunami and again for katrina...

Auld Lang Syne
05-09-2006, 03:22 PM
I'm guessing that we all will see hell freeze over before flunkie comes up with a credible link to his nazi story.

Frankie
05-09-2006, 04:07 PM
Where is your credible link? Still waiting.
I don't need to post a link about go bo's IQ. He's pretty bright dude.

Frankie
05-09-2006, 04:13 PM
I'm guessing that we all will see hell freeze over before flunkie comes up with a credible link to his nazi story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

There are more. But do your own research. I have a life.

Auld Lang Syne
05-09-2006, 04:23 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...1312540,00.html

There are more. But do your own research. I have a life.

You were the one that made the accusation. Where is your credible backup? BTW, if you had a life you wouldn't be posting here in the same manner that a rabbit procreates.

You are also full of shit and inept.




We haven't been able to serve the page you asked for.

If you typed in a URL, please make sure you have typed it correctly. In particular, make sure that the URL you typed is all in lower case.

Frankie
05-09-2006, 04:35 PM
Let's see it.
See what?

Loki
05-09-2006, 04:43 PM
ey when you bring up things like Nazi sypathizing allegations, make sure to check Big George's dad's contributions to the Hitler war machine. Might prevent you from posting things that make you look foolish. However I won't get into rehashing all the stuff we went over two years ago. This is my big diference etween the (spoiled) children of the two families. The Massachusett ones are on the record having done some very good thigs to benfit the less priviledged. To this day I cannot single out one thing that the Texas ones have done that did not have their own personal benefit as the goal. End of the story and my participation in this (by now) useless debate.

truthfully, the only one making themselves look foolish is yourself.

useless debate? agreed.

however, it would seem that you have been the antagonist in this matter.
for someone who continually whines about "personal attacks", you have
been the one serving up all the "provocative" comments to people...

Adept Havelock
05-09-2006, 06:20 PM
AH,

i have often wondered if the U2 had been served up to the russians in
attempts to help Khruschev save some more face with his government.

the timing couldn't have been more of a feather in the russians cap IMO.

what is your take on that?
It's certainly possible, but I'm inclined to doubt it for three reasons. I saw a very involved interview done by the BBC a number of years ago in which the commander of the Soviet Forces (they had a technical base for the Missile regiment, plus a Motor-Rifle division deployed in support) stated that the commander of that SA-2 battery had acted without orders, and had been arrested, tried, and executed for his action. I've never found any other documentation on that, but I don't speak or read Russian so there's a lot of untranslated material on the Soviet side I've never had a chance to read. By itself, I wouldn't take that as proof, but the other factors seem to support it.

Second, the U-2's flight profile wasn't unusually low altitude. It was the standard high-altitude (50,000-60,000 feet) pattern we'd used over the Soviet Union since we had deployed the U-2. I think the range of the SA-2 came as a great surprise to everyone. Plus, a couple of the USAF accounts I've read thought it was basically a lucky shot.

Third, the loss of the U-2 threatened to destabilize a situation that was reapproaching equilibrium. After that, Gen. Power's insistance on airstrikes on the SAM sites became extreme, to say the least. He agitated for this counter-strike even though we were aware that they were Soviet-manned SAM batteries, and an attack on them would mean US troops firing on USSR troops. That would almost certainly have ignited a general war.

That's why I don't think it was a "sacrificial lamb". The shoot down was incredibly destabilizing at a time the crisis was heating up. It was following the U-2 loss that the Jupiter missile "agreement" was reached, and Khruschev finally annouced the withdrawl of the missiles.

While I know JFK made some blunders in his career, I don't believe that he was foolish enough to do something that stupid. Not with the cards he was holding, and the fact he had a mirror (Penkovsky) showing him Khruschev's.

However, I've always wondered why U-2 overflights were not suspended until the aircraft could be improved. It was the same make of missile that took down Gary Powers U-2 some time later. I'm inclined to think it was institutional arrogance. I.E. The Russians just got lucky, there's no way there SAM's are that good.

Anyway, it's possible. To me though, it's unlikely.

Have a good one, Loki.

Loki
05-09-2006, 07:22 PM
It's certainly possible, but I'm inclined to doubt it for three reasons. I saw a very involved interview done by the BBC a number of years ago in which the commander of the Soviet Forces (they had a technical base for the Missile regiment, plus a Motor-Rifle division deployed in support) stated that the commander of that SA-2 battery had acted without orders, and had been arrested, tried, and executed for his action. I've never found any other documentation on that, but I don't speak or read Russian so there's a lot of untranslated material on the Soviet side I've never had a chance to read. By itself, I wouldn't take that as proof, but the other factors seem to support it.

Second, the U-2's flight profile wasn't unusually low altitude. It was the standard high-altitude (50,000-60,000 feet) pattern we'd used over the Soviet Union since we had deployed the U-2. I think the range of the SA-2 came as a great surprise to everyone. Plus, a couple of the USAF accounts I've read thought it was basically a lucky shot.

Third, the loss of the U-2 threatened to destabilize a situation that was reapproaching equilibrium. After that, Gen. Power's insistance on airstrikes on the SAM sites became extreme, to say the least. He agitated for this counter-strike even though we were aware that they were Soviet-manned SAM batteries, and an attack on them would mean US troops firing on USSR troops. That would almost certainly have ignited a general war.

That's why I don't think it was a "sacrificial lamb". The shoot down was incredibly destabilizing at a time the crisis was heating up. It was following the U-2 loss that the Jupiter missile "agreement" was reached, and Khruschev finally annouced the withdrawl of the missiles.

While I know JFK made some blunders in his career, I don't believe that he was foolish enough to do something that stupid. Not with the cards he was holding, and the fact he had a mirror (Penkovsky) showing him Khruschev's.

However, I've always wondered why U-2 overflights were not suspended until the aircraft could be improved. It was the same make of missile that took down Gary Powers U-2 some time later. I'm inclined to think it was institutional arrogance. I.E. The Russians just got lucky, there's no way there SAM's are that good.

Anyway, it's possible. To me though, it's unlikely.

Have a good one, Loki.

thanks for your thoughts... the question was merely something i was
curious about after reading your posts and remembering my history
readings/lessons.

thankfully we don't have to deal with the soviets in such a manner
anymore. :(

Adept Havelock
05-09-2006, 07:41 PM
thankfully we don't have to deal with the soviets in such a manner
anymore. :(

You've got that right. As glad as I am to have them tossed on the ashheap of history, I have to admint that in the dark hours I sometimes wonder if the reliability and predictability of the bipolar world struggle was easier to deal with than the new multipolar one.

stevieray
05-09-2006, 07:58 PM
See what?

:rolleyes: You are FOS, frankie.

You don't have anything to debate, nor can you back up the accusations, because the reality is, there isn't anything, other than you being defensive when someone askes you a simple question.

Cochise is right. Good luck.

Loki
05-09-2006, 10:14 PM
You've got that right. As glad as I am to have them tossed on the ashheap of history, I have to admint that in the dark hours I sometimes wonder if the reliability and predictability of the bipolar world struggle was easier to deal with than the new multipolar one.

indeed.

too many pissant nations trying to be the new jackass on the block with
nukes... (and still more seemingly itching to try them out...)

Frankie
05-10-2006, 09:42 AM
:rolleyes: You are FOS, frankie.

You don't have anything to debate, nor can you back up the accusations, because the reality is, there isn't anything, other than you being defensive when someone askes you a simple question.

Cochise is right. Good luck.
Bitching doesn't take the place of an answer. "See what" was the question. You still chose to stay vague.

No substance= Evade not to get exposed.

PunkinDrublic
05-10-2006, 09:58 AM
It was funny to listen to Sean Hannity get all angry at the way the media were treating Limbaugh but then get almost gleeful when it happens to a Kennedy. Just think though Patricks 38 if he cleans himself up now he'll have a jumpstart on dubya who was an alcohaulic and cokehead until 40.

stevieray
05-10-2006, 04:43 PM
Bitching doesn't take the place of an answer. "See what" was the question. You still chose to stay vague.

No substance= Evade not to get exposed.

post 161.

provide the evidence you claim to have. put up or shut up.