RE: John F. Kennedy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


MrRodgers -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/28/2008 11:17:32 PM)

Personally I think Kennedy could have been a great president but during his short time was merely good on some aspects. BTW, it is common knowledge that Eisenhower already knew of the plans drawn up for the Bay of Pigs and advised Kennedy to not only pursue the invasion but also that he follow France into Viet Nam for their oil and rubber.

The problem is that Kennedy wasn't ready to go ahead with the Bay of Pigs invasion when Dulles ordered it unlike any previous cabinet member. Kennedy, not ready, never authorized the responsible Air Force general to provide air support. Thus the invasion failed. Dulles was subsequently fired.

Kennedy's biggest mistake in office in my opinion was ordering 18,000 'advisers' to Viet Nam which almost everybody knew was the beginning of what was to be our 10+ year fiasco there. It was LBJ's committment to keep pursuing Kennedy's goal in space and civil rights. (he was the first and only president to use federal troops to protect civil rights) He later allowed the Gulf of Tonkin lie get us full force into Viet Nam resulting in over 50,000 American deaths for almost nothing.

Also, many felt that Russia would not have put missiles in Cuba if Kennedy had not ordered the invasion. That is bullshit for the following reasons.

Ballistic missiles were never meant to defend that island or anything as they are offensive weapons. Also, Cuba being the new socialist/communist presence in the hemisphere...Russia jumped in bed with them ONLY for the purposes of puting missiles there in the first place.




FirmhandKY -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 12:20:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The problem is that Kennedy wasn't ready to go ahead with the Bay of Pigs invasion when Dulles ordered it unlike any previous cabinet member. Kennedy, not ready, never authorized the responsible Air Force general to provide air support. Thus the invasion failed. Dulles was subsequently fired.


The Bay of Pigs was a disaster, and one that could have been avoided.

One of the things it did was send a very bad message to the Soviets about the "character" of Kennedy, and lead to more Soviet misadventurism.

"Defending Cuba" was never the real purpose of the missiles ... it was just a convenient fig leaf.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Also, many felt that Russia would not have put missiles in Cuba if Kennedy had not ordered the invasion. That is bullshit for the following reasons.

Ballistic missiles were never meant to defend that island or anything as they are offensive weapons. Also, Cuba being the new socialist/communist presence in the hemisphere...Russia jumped in bed with them ONLY for the purposes of puting missiles there in the first place.

Agreed.

One of the direct causes of many of the Cold War crisis during this period was Kennedy's inexperience:

Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed
By NATHAN THRALL and JESSE JAMES WILKINS
The New York Times

Extracts:

quote:

...

But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

...

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

Many people remember how Kennedy supposedly "stood up" to the Soviets. Few understand that he was one of the important causes of the problems at the time as well.

"Great"?

Firm




popeye1250 -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 12:34:49 AM)

I'm from Boston, Mass origionally and I don't think JFK was a "great" President.
He was probably a little below average.
Had he lived they'd have been protesting him for Vietnam instead of LBJ.
Vietnam sucked!
I lost a cousin there.
Another is on 100% disability because of it.
Another guy I know got shot in the face and it took out the roof of his mouth and most of his upper teeth.
And a friend's brother was the last Marine and military person killed in Vietnam.
I narrowly missed getting sent there.
To "stop communism?" In S.E. Asia? Who cares? Fuck 'Em!
That's why we shouldn't allow our govt to get involved in other countries problems!
"Darfur? Just say No!"
Fuck JFK and fuck LBJ!




Sanity -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 6:03:00 AM)


Kennedy made the proposal to put a man on the moon - but if that made him great wouldn't the Bush proposal to put a man on Mars make Bush "great" by the same token

quote:

Space race ... check.




DarkSteven -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 6:29:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Why would anyone think that John F Kennedy ranked as "a great President"?



      He got shot, and replaced by LBJ.  The legend grew.


You sure LBJ shot and replaced him?[:D]


      LOL.  Didn't mean it that way, but, who benefited?


There's a hilarious little book called Mac Bird, which describes the Kennedy/Johnson presidencies in Shakespearean form.  In that book, there's no question whatsoever that LBJ was behind JFK's killing.

Not exactly the most authoritative source, but it does prove that there was at least whispering about it.




Mercnbeth -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 7:13:33 AM)

~ Fast Reply ~

He had neither the time nor the support to accomplish any of his goals. He also had a hell of a mess to clean up after the Eisenhower administration where golf was the President's primary function while the CIA, and FBI established their kingdoms and special interests began the now common practice of buying votes in Congress.

If he had lived I wonder if his inaugural words would have carried us to a different destiny. Not the grandstanding moon mandate that people tend to focus. Instead I'd love to see a man, or a political party for that matter that would have the balls to once again run on a platform of this statements pragmatic elegance: 
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your county."
 
I doubt it can happen with most of the citizens wanting, and expecting, government handouts.




Owner59 -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 7:27:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Kennedy made the proposal to put a man on the moon - but if that made him great wouldn't the Bush proposal to put a man on Mars make Bush "great" by the same token

quote:

Space race ... check.




Perhaps one day,if a man gets to Mars.

But we all know Bush wasn`t serious about manned flight to Mars.

From him,that sounded pretty silly,especially after ruining NASA`s management with right wing ideologues and fake science.




philosophy -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 11:23:30 AM)

FR

...i think JFK's reputation lies in his speeches. Very few US presidents make speeches that become iconic worldwide, that speak to the human condition as opposed to narrow nationalism. 'Ask not what your country can do for you, etc' is inspirational for any human world wide, regardless of nationality.
A good president/prime minister does good things for their own country, great ones change the world.




jlf1961 -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:02:22 PM)

The simple truth is that there is no way to know WHAT kind of President Kennedy might have been.

Eisenhower had already put 'advisers' in Vietnam, the CIA was busy propping up the South Vietnamese government, Eisenhower already had the Bay of Pigs plan in motion and Kennedy got handed a hot potato.

If you wish to discuss inexperience, every president that hits the office has that problem.  For the entire duration of the cold war, each new president was tested by the Soviets.

Blaming Kennedy for the Russians putting missiles in Cuba is like blaming the Hindenburg disaster on someone farting in the damn thing.

The fact that the facilities needed for those missiles were already under construction before the bay of pigs seems to have slipped some people's memory.

Point of fact, even before the bay of pigs, the Soviet Union was giving, not selling, but giving Cuba military hardware, including guns, anti aircraft systems, early warning radar, MIGS, a few medium range bombers, as well as building installations capable of handling the TU95 Bears.  (Where do you think the Soviet Navy Bear variants refueled after crossing the Atlantic on ASW and Surface Search ops?)

The fact that even before Kennedy the Soviets were making every move necessary to make Cuba a staging center for any Soviet Operations in the Western Hemisphere.

When Kennedy called the Soviet bluff, it took Cuba off the board as a forward base for the soviets.

Of course, now with ex soviet hardliners running Russia, things may get interesting again.




chickpea -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:06:33 PM)

All I know is that John F. Kennedy is a great speaker.  And if History proves itself, like all the other great speakers (Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Clinton, etc.)  they all turned out to be great Presidents, because an ability to speak is an integral part of strong leadership (vision, and motivation), which is an integral part to success in Presiding and leading over this Big Giant Great Country.  So chances are, he would've turned out to be a great President.




meatcleaver -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:09:17 PM)

edit




celticlord2112 -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:11:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chickpea

All I know is that John F. Kennedy is a great speaker. And if History proves itself, like all the other great speakers (Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Clinton, etc.) they all turned out to be great Presidents, because an ability to speak is an integral part of strong leadership (vision, and motivation), which is an integral part to success in Presiding and leading over this Big Giant Great Country. So chances are, he would've turned out to be a great President.

Chickpea, there is more...much MUCH more...to governing and to leading that mere speechifying. Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, as well as Truman, and even Jackson, were accomplished men with well developed core principles that gave them the ability to lead in time of crisis, and lead well.

Clinton had it right. Obama is "just words."




Aynne88 -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:14:00 PM)

Compassionate conservatism? Lol....sad.[8|]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Why would anyone think that John F Kennedy ranked as "a great President"?


Well, duh... he was assassinated.  That must mean he was great.  Right?  [;)]



Ummm,to soon to make jokes about that.....to soon.[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m23.gif[/image]




FatDomDaddy -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:21:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

John F. Kennedy never had a chance to prove himself, however, I would point out that he was the first President to push for Equal Rights for African Americans,


Was this before or after he had Bobby wire tap Dr. King's phones?




FatDomDaddy -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:24:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The simple truth is that there is no way to know WHAT kind of President Kennedy might have been.



I am guessing that since it was JFK's cabinet and general staff LBJ was listening too, exactly the same kind Johnson was.  




FatDomDaddy -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:30:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Ummm ,.... He bagged Marilyn Monroe?[sm=sex.gif]


When she was an old junkie.




chickpea -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:33:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: chickpea

All I know is that John F. Kennedy is a great speaker. And if History proves itself, like all the other great speakers (Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Clinton, etc.) they all turned out to be great Presidents, because an ability to speak is an integral part of strong leadership (vision, and motivation), which is an integral part to success in Presiding and leading over this Big Giant Great Country. So chances are, he would've turned out to be a great President.

Chickpea, there is more...much MUCH more...to governing and to leading that mere speechifying. Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, as well as Truman, and even Jackson, were accomplished men with well developed core principles that gave them the ability to lead in time of crisis, and lead well.

Clinton had it right. Obama is "just words."


Throughout this campaign, no matter HOW HARD Obama was attacked, he has soared to greater and greater heights until he reached the stratosphere yesterday.  And has remained cool, calm, collected and grown wiser and tougher.  These qualities of toughness under pressure, sound judgement, and inspiring 100,000 people to wait hours outside Mile High Stadium,  I think you are sorely not able to see the signs.  (let's not forget he came from a middle-class background, went to Harvard Law School [did very well there, was elected President of some honorable society], had a bunch of white people vote for him in Iowa when he was an unknown) 

Not only do the above Obama qualities remind me of a very smart Clinton from a middle-class background as well who grows stronger under fire.  But the "just words" is exactly what they said about Clinton (or was it his Saxaphone?).  That is what kind of person and qualities it takes in a person to be GREAT President of the U.S.  Toughness under fire.  And to lead, great speaking abilities that allow you to connect with and inspire those you lead. 

We really need a Great President with inate talent to lead the country out of this mess it's in.... :-(

Detract, detract, detract.... sigh    oh yeah, you're a Republican.  heh





peterK50 -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:35:46 PM)

Same as getting shot down & a P.O.W.makes you a hero & Presidential timber.




slvemike4u -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:51:12 PM)

While it is certainly true that his Presidency was tragically cut short,IMO there is enough there to suggest he would have been a more than capable President.His clarion call of the "best and the brightest"to serve their country brought to Washington some truly dedicated and inspired public servants.
Yes FatDomDaddy he had RFK tap MLK ,he feared the political problems King could cause him if he pushed too hard,not in an attempt to silence MLK but more in an attempt to "manage"the movement so as not to get out too far in front of what was politically possible at the time.
    Yes The Bay of Pigs was an unmitigated disaster,planned and conceived in its entirety during the Eisenhower Administration and foisted on the incoming President by the intelligence and military community,who blatantly lied to the incoming President in an attempt to back him into a corner from which the only choice,to their way of thinking was the use of US forces to support the ill-fated invasion.To his credit he refused to do any such thing.And took the heat publicy for the fiasco,while behind the scenes reshuffling those that would be giving him advice in the future.
To blame him and his inexperience for the Cuban Missile Crisis is truly a joke...as history shows Kruschev's misreading of the mettle of the man was the impetus for the Soviet Union to take this provocative step.So Kennedy himself is now responsible for Kruschev's failed gambit...interesting to say the least..Thank God the Soviet Premier had misjudged Kennedy,if in fact Kennedy was soft as Kruschev believed the world might well have been plunged into a war which might very well have led to a nuclear exchange...It took a strong and resolute President to stare down the hawks in his own cabinet and military who advocated a preemptive surprise attack on those sites..
Yes IMHO Kennedy certainly qualifies has a good President and possibly there was greatness in the future..




FatDomDaddy -> RE: John F. Kennedy (8/29/2008 3:53:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Yes FatDomDaddy he had RFK tap MLK ,he feared the political problems King could cause him if he pushed too hard,not in an attempt to silence MLK but more in an attempt to "manage"the movement so as not to get out too far in front of what was politically possible at the time.
  


Why do Democrats always want to manage Black People?





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875