• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cuban Missile Crisis & Obama/Mccain

sportage

sportage

Lifer
Doesn?t matter what or where Obama comes from or his experience.
The FACT that he can give a speech proving his head is screwed on right,
shows his head is screwed on right.
Experience = wisdom. Obama has wisdom.

One could serve for 30 years and still have the poorest judgment.
Another could serve for 1 year and show all the experience of 30.

I remember JFK and the missile crisis. I plug Mccain and Obama into
JFK's place as a "what if".
I trust Obama would have made the same and correct decisions as
JFK made.
Mccain on the other hand (as with Bush) would have had us living world war three.
With millions of Americans dead and life returning to the stone age
Think about it!!! Who would YOU have wanted in JFK's place back then???
Who would you trust to have done the right thing back then?
Obama, a thinker, or Mccain/Bush, the shootem-up cowboy.
Think about it... Think about it hard...
 
presidents need to be prudent decision makers, sort of like how Jean Luc Picard would be a better president then Kirk, but Kirk may have been a better field commander
 
REPOST

This is the same lame copy/pasted argument you posted in another thread.

If you really think giving a good speech alone makes you wise, you are in need of some severe help. Also, I think it's insulting that you would insinuate Obama can be wise only because he gives good speeches-- I'd like to think it's because he's an intelligent man who came from humble beginnings and worked his way up to become a US Senator.. but I digress...
 
Originally posted by: mizzou
presidents need to be prudent decision makers, sort of like how Jean Luc Picard would be a better president then Kirk, but Kirk may have been a better field commander
Click to expand...

LOL

 
This is a no-brainer. Obama/Biden easily over McSoccermom.
 
The Russians were the ones who ultimately showed cooler heads during the Cuban Missile Crisis...JFK is the one who nearly led us into a shooting war on that one...and how quickly people seem to forget Bay of Pigs...I don't think we want Obama to emulate JFK on foreign policy.
 
Obama will meet putin face to face, Putin will never come here in the middle of a crisis so BHO goes there. For 12 - 14 hours he will run the country from AF1 in the middle of the crisis American president will be in Russia... I thing I will stick with McCain
 
Obama offers hope for an American future free from foreign dependence. The best answer to Russia is a strong healthy United States. All the words and diplomacy don't amount to a hill of beans if we go down the toilet. Only a fool votes for more of the same disaster.
 
Considering that the bay of pigs invasion paved the way for the Cuban missle crisis, maybe you should look at exactly how bad JFK handled that, then ask yourself if McCain would have made the same mistakes.

Of course you could argue that Obama may not have conducted the bay of pigs invasion in the first place, but then again the same could be said of McCain, and there is no way to know if that would have even made things any better.

The point being, if Obama was president when the bay of pigs invasion happened it is more likely that Obama would have made the same mistakes JFK did and the Cuban missile crisis would still have happened.
 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The Russians were the ones who ultimately showed cooler heads during the Cuban Missile Crisis...JFK is the one who nearly led us into a shooting war on that one...and how quickly people seem to forget Bay of Pigs...I don't think we want Obama to emulate JFK on foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Brief history lesson for you:

- The Russians did not show 'cool heads' when they put the missiles in Cuba secretly.

- JFK, as usual, was the dove against his own advisors, much less the Republicans. While he was with them at first on attacking Cuba, he was among the first to retreat on that.

- JFK had virtually no choice on the Bay of Pigs. It was an *Eisenhower* administration plan, where Cuba was rated #1 by the US public as a foreign policy concern, and JFK had the CIA (lying) and Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously saying the plan was a foolproof one. Had he not done it, he'd have had a crippled presidency as a 'weak' president, forever said to have lost the chance to get back Cuba when we could have got it easily. It was a rare mistake on his part, but one that he'd have been hurt badly if he hadn't made.

- While JFK handled the crisis well, there was a lot of luck in how well it went.

- JFK improved greatly and was the best president for peace we've had in several decades at least, probably in the last century+.
 
McCain is showing every day that he is a "gut reader" in the same vein as George W. Bush. Going on instinct has gone terribly wrong for Bush, yet anti-intellectual Americans find it endearing and better than some "uppity" smart person who analyzes facts. Using one's brain is confusing and unromantic. The voting public reaps what it sows.
 
The only thing impressive about the way JFK handled the Cuban Missile Crisis was how he managed to cover up his mistakes and come out of it smelling like a rose. Because the facts are that he caused it. First, he put short-range missiles in Turkey pointed straight at Moscow. Then, he sent Castro running straight into Khrushchev's arms.

 
REPOST

This is the same lame copy/pasted argument you posted in another thread.
Click to expand...

Yes I did, because its a common sense test people should ask themselves.
Its fun making youtubes of Paris and Moses, but this is the real world.
You want someone with wisdom, like JFK. Not a pandering wana-be, "its my turn"
republican.

I'm starting to smell a puppet here i.e. Mccain
Just like we all know Cheney really runs Bush and the Whitehouse, it appears Mccain
is being controlled by the republican elite hiding out in dark places.

Who knows what "contract" Mccain had to signoff on, to get where he is.
Mccain, the same guy the republican smear machine totally destroyed back in 2000.
Have you forgotten 2000 Mccain vs Bush? Come-on now... really...
 
Originally posted by: Vic
The only thing impressive about the way JFK handled the Cuban Missile Crisis was how he managed to cover up his mistakes and come out of it smelling like a rose. Because the facts are that he caused it. First, he put short-range missiles in Turkey pointed straight at Moscow. Then, he sent Castro running straight into Khrushchev's arms.
Click to expand...

Can you blame him. I do, but what's a vote getter to do in a nation of guys filled with pathology and testosterone who are sure that violent aggression is the way to win. It's hard in a democracy of lunatics to govern with any sanity at all.
 
We should also not forget that Kennedy's inexperience caused his first meeting with Khrushchev to be a total disaster that lead the Russians into think they could push Kennedy around.

The missile crisis was created because the Russians didn't think Kennedy would stand up to him the way he did.

We learned the same lesson in the late 1970s when Carter showed the world that he was weak and the result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And we learned that lesson yet again in the 90s when Clinton ignored terrorist attack after terrorist attack until we finally got hit with 9-11.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should also not forget that Kennedy's inexperience caused his first meeting with Khrushchev to be a total disaster that lead the Russians into think they could push Kennedy around.

The missile crisis was created because the Russians didn't think Kennedy would stand up to him the way he did.

We learned the same lesson in the late 1970s when Carter showed the world that he was weak and the result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And we learned that lesson yet again in the 90s when Clinton ignored terrorist attack after terrorist attack until we finally got hit with 9-11.
Click to expand...

FART
 
I think Obama will more likely to find a way to compromise and how to deal with a crisis diplomatically, while McCain will just bust his throat screaming WWIII.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should also not forget that Kennedy's inexperience caused his first meeting with Khrushchev to be a total disaster that lead the Russians into think they could push Kennedy around.

The missile crisis was created because the Russians didn't think Kennedy would stand up to him the way he did.

We learned the same lesson in the late 1970s when Carter showed the world that he was weak and the result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And we learned that lesson yet again in the 80s when Reagan ignored terrorist attack after terrorist attack until we finally got hit with 9-11.
Click to expand...

😀
 
Originally posted by: sportage
The FACT that he can give a speech proving his head is screwed on right,
shows his head is screwed on right.
Experience = wisdom. Obama has wisdom.
Click to expand...

It proves no such thing. None whatsoever.

A speech is just *performance art*.

The candidates don't even write the speeches themselves, even if they did it wouldn't change anything.

In times of crisis one must correctly identify and weigh the pluses and minuses. One must anticipate consequences and the opponent's reactions/moves and counter-moves; and do so quickly and under a lot of pressure. A speech? It's a rehearsed performance with no opponent and prepared for long in advance etc. A speech doesn't have an opponent.

It's completely ludricrous to assert that public speaking ability demonstrates anything than public speaking ability. If Obama was in the Cuban Missle crisis we can probably be sure he would eloquently deliver his remarks, but that hardly assures the wisdom of the content etc.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should also not forget that Kennedy's inexperience caused his first meeting with Khrushchev to be a total disaster that lead the Russians into think they could push Kennedy around.
Click to expand...

Kennedy's 'inexperience' had nothing to do with why Kruschev chose to try to bully Kennedy, and Kennedy didnothing wrong in how he handled Kruschev.

Kennedy was hurt somewhat by the wrongdoing of the CIA and military on the Bay of Pigs where they tried to force him to introduce US forces after he said he wouldn't.

The CIA and military - mostly the CIA - harmed the national interest with their disloyal attempt that made Kennedy look weaker, when he was actually being strong.

The missile crisis was created because the Russians didn't think Kennedy would stand up to him the way he did.
Click to expand...

You mistakenly lay the blame for Kruschev's belligerence on Kennedy, and you misrepresent their motive.

We learned the same lesson in the late 1970s when Carter showed the world that he was weak and the result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

You really need to stop making up facts to try to sell your opinions. The Carter administration in fact enticed the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan.

Why don't you back up your claim about the Soviet Union's motive by showing evidence - their archives are open now to us - how something weak Carter did was why they invaded?

Not just some side comment leaving your claim a half-truth, but back up what you said that that was *the* reason for invading.

And we learned that lesson yet again in the 90s when Clinton ignored terrorist attack after terrorist attack until we finally got hit with 9-11.
Click to expand...

More lies you have been corrected on many times. There was the first WTC attack, which Clinton successfully apprehended and convicted the terrorists of.

Later attacks had unclear sources for a period of time - 'Al Queda' wasn't even known as a term to the US earlier in Clinton's adminstration.

Once the evidence was in, Clinton did a lot, with a develoed war plan he handed to the incoming Bush administration (rather than handing a war to his successor as Bush is doing), and as Clarke said, he had daily personal meetings with Clarke and Tenent pushing them to do more against Al Queda. These efforts were abandoned by the Bush administration, who made terrorism not much of a prioritty until 9/11. Anti-terrorism wasn't even on the Bush Justice Department's list of top ten priorities before 9/11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top