• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I Will Now Be Voting For Donald Trump

Fishking said:
That's not the point. Russia was the target of our nukes and we had them in their back yard. The equivalent was putting nukes in our back yard targeting us. It's a false equivalency to the extreme.
Click to expand...

It is not really a false argument in a time of multiple overkill.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Turkey nukes did not even come up until late, and Khrushchev himself dropped the demand for their removal. As you can see, Berlin was the cause.

". . . The Soviets had tried to take over West Berlin in 1948-9. Their blockade had been frustrated by an Anglo-American airlift and by the astonishing resolution of the West Berliners, but in 1958 Khrushchev had once more revived the threat, and he continued to do so. In 1961, he and the East Germans built a wall around West Berlin as a stopgap measure to halt the exodus of East Germans from Soviet-controlled areas. Earlier in 1962 he had told Kennedy that he intended to act on West Berlin as soon as the US congressional elections were over.
Counselled by Thompson, Kennedy interpreted the installation of missiles in Cuba as a move preparatory to a showdown on Berlin. For him, such a showdown would create a horrible dilemma. The United States had promised to protect the million and a half West Berliners from Soviet take-over, but had no means whatever for physically preventing the thousands of East German and Soviet troops that surrounded Berlin from taking control of the city if they chose to do so. The only protection for West Berlin was the US threat to respond to an attack by using nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. . . ."

​
". . . In the end, Kennedy found a way to finesse the situation. He sent Robert Kennedy to see the Soviet ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin, to tell him that the missiles in Turkey were obsolete, and that the US planned to pull them out within about six months. All this was true. He said further, however, that, if the Soviet Union used this knowledge to claim that the US had struck the deal proposed in Khrushchev's radio message, Kennedy would deny the claim and would not remove the missiles from Turkey. What Kennedy wanted was to mollify Khrushchev without seeming to make a concession, and above all to avoid any prolonged negotiations. He had to insist that Soviet missiles come out of Cuba unconditionally, or he would compromise the display of firmness that he judged necessary to protect against a Berlin crisis.
In fact, the exchange between Robert Kennedy and Dobrynin had no effect. Khrushchev had already decided to retreat to a simple request for a no invasion pledge. And the crisis ended on that basis. US reconnaissance aircraft kept watch while the Soviets dismantled their missiles and loaded the parts on ships for return to the Soviet Union. . . ."


History - World Wars: John F Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis

www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/kennedy_cuban_missile_01.shtml

BBC


Jump to A Berlin crisis, not a Cuba crisis - American tanks on alert in the Berlin Grunewald, West ... crisis was not centrally about missiles in Cuba; ...
Click to expand...

The main danger of nukes close to the borders is the short response time. it doesn't leave time for a call or analysis. Human or tech failure can necessitate retaliation before the situation can be dealt with.
 
Anthony60 said:
Ooops!
Sorry, just had to.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that when he made that comment and I was thinking-go big but when you go big and fail the fall is a long one
 
shrubnose said:
He didn't win by a huge margin but he is the elected president.
Click to expand...

It was a titanic margin considering whom he was up against, and the level of beatdown he was expected to get. This was just like 1980, and they said it wouldn't happen. "They" weren't listening to the People. Live and learn.
 
shrubnose said:
He didn't win by a huge margin but he is the elected president.
Click to expand...

What do you consider a "huge margin"? He absolutely crushed her electoral vote wise. He is behind a couple hundred thousand individual votes, but for some reason Arizona, Michigan, and New Hampshire have yet to call it.
 
trouble13;1066524810[B said:
]I would say it was a big margin
Click to expand...
[/B]


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



You can say whatever you want to say but it won't change the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 60 thousand votes.

Check it out here: United States presidential election, 2016 - Wikipedia

In 4 or 8 years a different person will move into the White House.



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch,running out of time, GOP.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom