Who's the better President in a crisis? (1 Viewer)

[Billo_Really]

Who would you rather have running this country in times of a national crisis? George Bush or John F. Kennedy?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who would you rather have running this country in times of a national crisis? George Bush or John F. Kennedy?

Either. JFK was a Cold Warrior - a Peach Through Strength kind of leader, who, today, would be vilified as a neoconservative warmonger.

I remember walking out of "Thirteen Days" saying to the group I was with that "Its a DAMN good thing Bill Clinton wasn't President in 1962."

 

[SKILMATIC]

Either. JFK was a Cold Warrior - a Peach Through Strength kind of leader, who, today, would be vilified as a neoconservative warmonger.

I remember walking out of "Thirteen Days" saying to the group I was with that "Its a DAMN good thing Bill Clinton wasn't President in 1962."

Id have to agree with every word in his statement.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by SKILMATIC:
Id have to agree with every word in his statement.

How about spelling? How would you grade his spelling?

 

[Iriemon]

Well lets see.

Kennedy appeased the Soviets by agreeing to keep out of Cuba, essentially handing over the island to the Russians. The war-mongers tell us all the time how awful appeasement is, so he should have launched the nukes.

Bush was alseep at the wheel when terrorists snuck in an hit us, talked big (we'll get him dead or alive) but then responded by invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack.

Tough choice.

 

[SKILMATIC]

How about spelling? How would you grade his spelling?

Are we in a spelling "b?" Cause if we were grading spelling my grade would be a "f-." :lol:

 

[M14 Shooter]

How about spelling? How would you grade his spelling?

You really are a pathetic little person, aren't you?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Iriemon:
Tough choice.

Good point.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
You really are a pathetic little person, aren't you?

At least I know how to interpret and comprehend the US Constitution better than a scared little rabbit that thinks the document can be re-written with a few active x commands.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At least I know how to interpret and comprehend the US Constitution better than a scared little rabbit that thinks the document can be re-written with a few active x commands.

Bwwwwaahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Not only are you a pathetic little man, but you're also delusional!!!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by SKILMATIC:
Are we in a spelling "b?" Cause if we were grading spelling my grade would be a "f-."

But that's an honest "f-" you!

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well lets see.

Kennedy appeased the Soviets by agreeing to keep out of Cuba, essentially handing over the island to the Russians. The war-mongers tell us all the time how awful appeasement is, so he should have launched the nukes.

Bush was alseep at the wheel when terrorists snuck in an hit us, talked big (we'll get him dead or alive) but then responded by invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack.

Tough choice.

How was he appeasing to the Russians when he said "take the nukes out or else?" The Russians from what I remember took their nukes out and went home crying. Yes Cuba was their ally but they can ally themselves with whomever they want this in no way handed over the country to Russia. Thats Cuba's problem.

Warmongers are against appeasement in the form of war making to stop the threat, not to create nuclear fallout. If nuclear war were to occur then the warmongers wouldnt be indulging in that perspective.

Now as far as bush I do agree with you that it was his fault to a point that we got attacked when he knew about it and he could've stopped it. But so was alot of other people as well. We can place the blame card but, we need to do so in a fair manor. Clinton knew about "able danger" as well and before Bush too. He attacked a country that had ties to terrorism. Now were those ties connected to 9/11? I dont know for sure but I can tell you this, should it matter? You mean to tell me one terrorist is less threatening than another? I thought they all committed the same crime which was terrorism? Right? Which would make them all important to capture or kill. The war is on terror not war on osama. Bush invaded the correct country and he was right on. Now of course there are others that have connections to terrorism, but technically we would have to invade half of the world. I think country hoping is the right plan. This tactic worked in WW2 I think in the long run it will work here.

 

[SKILMATIC]

But that's an honest "f-" you!

I know you can thank me later. :lol:

 

[SKILMATIC]

At least I know how to interpret and comprehend the US Constitution better than a scared little rabbit that thinks the document can be re-written with a few active x commands.

Are you sure you can read the constitution better than me? Hey wait a minute I just insulted myself :rofl

GODAMIT!!!:lol:

 

[M14 Shooter]

How was he appeasing to the Russians when he said "take the nukes out or else?" The Russians from what I remember took their nukes out and went home crying. Yes Cuba was their ally but they can ally themselves with whomever they want this in no way handed over the country to Russia. Thats Cuba's problem.

JFK threatened general nuclear war. The Russians blinked.
They agreed to pull their missiles from Cuba, but asked to be allowed to save some face, so we pulled Jupiter missles out of Turkey 6 months before they were scheduled to stand down. The Russians gaioned nothing in the deal because they already had general access to Cuba in terms of basing and operational support.

Thats not appeasement - that's brinkmanship. JFK was a steel-eyed missle man, and, as I said, would be called a neoconservative warmonger today.

If he were'nt a Democrat, that is.

 

[Iriemon]

How was he appeasing to the Russians when he said "take the nukes out or else?" The Russians from what I remember took their nukes out and went home crying. Yes Cuba was their ally but they can ally themselves with whomever they want this in no way handed over the country to Russia. Thats Cuba's problem.

How about Hungary '56? Czechoslavakia '68? Afganistan '79? Poland '80?

Warmongers are against appeasement in the form of war making to stop the threat, not to create nuclear fallout. If nuclear war were to occur then the warmongers wouldnt be indulging in that perspective.

So ... appeasement is OK if you conclude the cost is greater than the benefit. I can see that.

Now as far as bush I do agree with you that it was his fault to a point that we got attacked when he knew about it and he could've stopped it. But so was alot of other people as well. We can place the blame card but, we need to do so in a fair manor. Clinton knew about "able danger" as well and before Bush too. He attacked a country that had ties to terrorism. Now were those ties connected to 9/11? I dont know for sure but I can tell you this, should it matter?

No, I was just somewhat sarcastically responding to a somewhat silly poll.

You mean to tell me one terrorist is less threatening than another?

That is not what I mean to tell you, but of course this is true. When was the last time you laid awake at night worrying about a Basque nationalist blowing up your car?

I thought they all committed the same crime which was terrorism? Right?

None of them are committed to the crime of terrorism per se. All of them use terrorism to achieve some other political goal. In bin Laden's case, I think it was to goad the US into a Islamic war to unite Muslems against us, which is what he wants.

Which would make them all important to capture or kill.

So, why haven't we sent troops to Andalucia?

The war is on terror not war on osama. Bush invaded the correct country and he was right on.

The war was not on bin Laden, a terrorist who attacked us, but was right on against Hussein, who had never attacked us, was not an Islamic fundamentalist radical, who ahd never, ever, in his 25 year reign been implicated in one terrorist attack, and whose support for terrorism was about nil.

And that is "right on"? Are we finding a war on terrorism or a war on petty dictators?

Now of course there are others that have connections to terrorism,

Yeah. Like Saudi Arabia. Probably the biggest terrorist sponsoring nation there is, 15 of whose citizens flew the planes that attacked us. Kiss kiss, Mr. Bush.

but technically we would have to invade half of the world. I think country hoping is the right plan. This tactic worked in WW2 I think in the long run it will work here.

We country hopped in WWII?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC:
Are you sure you can read the constitution better than me? Hey wait a minute I just insulted myself

I was not talking about you, your Majesty!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC:
I know you can thank me later

The setup was perfect and the later is now, thank you.

 

[SKILMATIC]

How about Hungary '56? Czechoslavakia '68? Afganistan '79? Poland '80?

And what do these instances have to do with a domestic crisis? Please you are going waaay off tangeant here.

So ... appeasement is OK if you conclude the cost is greater than the benefit. I can see that.

Ok then I am glad you can see something my dear friend.

No, I was just somewhat sarcastically responding to a somewhat silly poll.

O ok well can I politely ask you next time you do so, that you do it by being somewhat on topic? I would greatly appreciate it.

That is not what I mean to tell you, but of course this is true. When was the last time you laid awake at night worrying about a Basque nationalist blowing up your car?

Well to tell you the truth I dont even worry about the taliban or al qaeda blowing up my car. And you want to know why that is my dear good friend? Its called foreign policy. And in that foreign policy we have decided that preemptive striking is the way to go. And in that preemptive striking has been able to severly cripple their future appointments with my beloved automobile and kept them busy on their soil by greeting them with 2000pd bombs. Now I ask you the same question. How do you feel about the safety and security of your automobile. Me personally are more afraid of it getting stolen than anything.

None of them are committed to the crime of terrorism per se. All of them use terrorism to achieve some other political goal. In bin Laden's case, I think it was to goad the US into a Islamic war to unite Muslems against us, which is what he wants.

Well its too bad osama is a dumby becasue he didnt have to do anything to acheive that becasue majority of the islamic world already doesnt like us. Osama can thank al jazeera for that misconception. The fact is osama is committing these acts of terror because what the US did to him and his country men decades ago. We committed acts of bad foreign policy. Do you know what those acts are my dear good friend?

So, why haven't we sent troops to Andalucia?

Well why haven't we sent troops to Kyrgistan, Turkmenistan, Mayamar, Burma, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on and on.

The war was not on bin Laden, a terrorist who attacked us, but was right on against Hussein, who had never attacked us, was not an Islamic fundamentalist radical, who ahd never, ever, in his 25 year reign been implicated in one terrorist attack, and whose support for terrorism was about nil.

And that is "right on"? Are we finding a war on terrorism or a war on petty dictators?

Really? And how old are you again? You mean to tell me sadaam never once in his life committed an act of terror against humanity? Just answer that one question becasue once you answer it will tell me alot about what kind of individual you are.

Yeah. Like Saudi Arabia. Probably the biggest terrorist sponsoring nation there is, 15 of whose citizens flew the planes that attacked us. Kiss kiss, Mr. Bush.

Yep, and IMO they should be next. What do you think? Or should we by your hand let them slide? But if you say let them slide then your whole argument goes right down the toilet. I hope you understand that.

We country hopped in WWII?

Yes you dont remember? It was the most famous battle tactic in the pacific. Did you not pay attention in history class? You mean tot tell me you dont recall "island hoping?"

 

[Iriemon]

Well why haven't we sent troops to Kyrgistan, Turkmenistan, Mayamar, Burma, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on and on.

Exactly -- the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with a war on terror, except that provided a convenient excuse.

Yes you dont remember? It was the most famous battle tactic in the pacific. Did you not pay attention in history class? You mean tot tell me you dont recall "island hoping?"

OK -- I'd never heard it referred to as nation hopping, because we were fighting the same nation (in the Pacific). Maybe now we are "nation hopping," which has little to do with "island hopping" except for the word hopping.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Either. JFK was a Cold Warrior - a Peach Through Strength kind of leader, who, today, would be vilified as a neoconservative warmonger.

I remember walking out of "Thirteen Days" saying to the group I was with that "Its a DAMN good thing Bill Clinton wasn't President in 1962."

You are right, part of the reason why Castro wanted to have Soviet nuclear missles stationed in Cuba was because the US was planning to invade Cuba. Of course, the Soviet Union took advantage of this opportunity to further it's own agenda. But the movie didn't go into the details and show just how close the world came to nuclear war. Their were other incidents left out that came close to triggering nuclear war. I think a Soviet submarine commander defied a Kremlin order to launch nuclear tipped torpodeos at US destroyers who had started to bombard him with depth charges. If he had followed that order, it would have certainly led to a nuclear exchange. Very close the world came. Their are still alot of details that are only just now emerging from the Cuban Missle Crisis that was not public knowledge.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Exactly -- the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with a war on terror, except that provided a convenient excuse.

Well then what is it about? I know we didnt go there for oil. So what is your vast intelligence tell you why we went into iraq?

OK -- I'd never heard it referred to as nation hopping, because we were fighting the same nation (in the Pacific). Maybe now we are "nation hopping," which has little to do with "island hopping" except for the word hopping.

Well what do you think those little islands were? They were their own country or apart of bigger countries. And yes we are now doing the same thing except on a bigger scale. However, I dont think we will be able to finish our hoping cause of the mental cases that complaign and complaign of a little death here and there. We lose more people on the roads and I dont here anything from the mental disorders about tearing down the roads and banning cars.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Well then what is it about? I know we didnt go there for oil. So what is your vast intelligence tell you why we went into iraq?



Well what do you think those little islands were? They were their own country or apart of bigger countries. And yes we are now doing the same thing except on a bigger scale. However, I dont think we will be able to finish our hoping cause of the mental cases that complaign and complaign of a little death here and there. We lose more people on the roads and I dont here anything from the mental disorders about tearing down the roads and banning cars.

Their is more evidence that suggests we went to Iraq for oil than us going to Iraq for "fighting terror" (BS!). Where is your evidence to back up your claim that we are not in Iraq for oil? What makes you so sure? Do you always believe what politicans tell you? Do you think that they will not lie to you? Why didn't the US stop terrorism in other countries which did not have oil or other resources?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Their is more evidence that suggests we went to Iraq for oil than us going to Iraq for "fighting terror" (BS!). Where is your evidence to back up your claim that we are not in Iraq for oil? What makes you so sure? Do you always believe what politicans tell you? Do you think that they will not lie to you? Why didn't the US stop terrorism in other countries which did not have oil or other resources?

Well my evidence is simply this. Last time I checked I payed about 2.5dollars for a gallon of gas. You cant possibly tell me its about oil. That isnt even an argument cause there is no way you can argue that. The evidence is in the pocket book bud.

If Iraq had no ties to terrorism then how come the leader of the prominent terror organization al qaeda has been able to reside there and infiltrate himself in Iraq for several months without ever being caught? There must be some ties to terrorism right? Only comon sense would tell you that. Its not rocket science bud. There are obviously huge ties to alot of terrorist or rogue groups. Now why do terrorists seem to be able to find refuge in such a country that supposedly has no ties to terrorism? Hmmm...??? makes you think huh?

 

[TimmyBoy]

Well my evidence is simply this. Last time I checked I payed about 2.5dollars for a gallon of gas. You cant possibly tell me its about oil. That isnt even an argument cause there is no way you can argue that. The evidence is in the pocket book bud.

If Iraq had no ties to terrorism then how come the leader of the prominent terror organization al qaeda has been able to reside there and infiltrate himself in Iraq for several months without ever being caught? There must be some ties to terrorism right? Only comon sense would tell you that. Its not rocket science bud. There are obviously huge ties to alot of terrorist or rogue groups. Now why do terrorists seem to be able to find refuge in such a country that supposedly has no ties to terrorism? Hmmm...??? makes you think huh?

Eh sure Skilly and I am Santa Clause in the North Pole. Your "evidence" wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. But I guess if you are a soldier you have to believe in the fabricated lie produced by the Bush Adminstration about WMD in Iraq.