fenix03
|
posted on September 21, 2003 10:34:53 AM new
I was watching 13 Days this week and could not help but wonder what the outcome would have been had the current administration been in office.
I thought it might be an interesting topic of converation...
Personally - I think that the US would have about 60% of its current inhabitable land and a much higher cancer rate.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Men Are Like Grapes. If You Stomp on Them and Keep Them in the Dark Long Enough, They Might Turn Into Something That You Would Take to Dinner
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 21, 2003 10:47:19 AM new
Personally, I believe that had JFK not held the position he did, the Russians would NOT have backed down. And the end result would have been different. Had they NOT backed down, it's my belief Kennedy would have taken care of the problem very quickly....just as he said he would.
|
BEAR1949
|
posted on September 21, 2003 11:08:01 AM new
A little known (or published) fact is that during the whole crisis US Marine Corp troops were airborne, flying up & down the Florida coast ready for insertion into Cuba.
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. ~ Thomas Jefferson
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 21, 2003 11:48:31 AM new
Personally - I think that the US would have about 60% of its current inhabitable land and a much higher cancer rate.
Right,
If George Bush had been in Kennedy's position, he would have started a nuclear war with Russia. That's evident by his inability to negotiate after the 9/11 attack and the resulting loss of world support. His knee jerk rush to preemptive attack against a country that wasn't even involved in 9/11 illustrates how a similar crisis such as the Cuban missile crisis would be handled. His impatience with diplomacy would have resulted in the use of immediate force and ultimately in nuclear war.
Helen
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 21, 2003 12:03:04 PM new
The Russians did not back down. A negotiated settlement was worked out in which the Soviets removed the missiles from Cuba and we removed similar missiles that we had at ready in Europe within range of the USSR. The common mythology is that the Soviets backed down out of fear.
Both sides won.
Bush would have botched the negotiation had he even bothered to participate.
Republican, the other white meat!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 21, 2003 02:22:42 PM new
That's evident by his inability to negotiate after the 9/11 attack AFTER??? LOL ugh, helen...if the Russians had already sent a missile our way, rather than just being caught at building the missile sights, Kennedy wouldn't have been negotiating either. The two cannot be compared with each other. One was with only the threat of Russian missiles being pointed in our direction...the other was after the planes had hit our towers.
-----
dave - You call it however you want to. Anybody can read the online JFK official library site to read how he saw the crisis. My point is the Russians took his threats seriously and removed the problem missiles. Period. President Kennedy didn't back down from what he was demanding be done.
both sides won....there were THREE sides involved in this crisis. And Cuba was NOT happy that Russia agreed to withdraw what they saw as the Russian support/the missiles.
And you're right....we were all lucky it was worked out. But there's no doubt in my mind, the missiles would not have remained in Cuba.
edited to add the link to the JFK library.
http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/cmc_exhibit_2002.html
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 21, 2003 02:31 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 21, 2003 02:31:58 PM new
Good info here...
National Security Archive
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 21, 2003 02:50:31 PM new
"Only two or three people--not the bulk of the ExComm--knew about Robert Kennedy's secret October 27 meeting with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and his offer to remove the Turkish missiles" Which was the solution to the situation, no one blinked on either side they choose the solution which was beneficial to both parties.
As to Cuba's position they became and remain an orphan of abandonment of the Soviet empires ultimate economic implosion.
Republican, the other white meat!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 21, 2003 02:50:35 PM new
Fenix's question, Linda...
I was watching 13 Days this week and could not help but wonder what the outcome would have been had the current administration been in office.
Based on Bush's lack of patience and inability to negotiate as evidenced by his performance after 9/11 -- with his "bring em on mentality", it's very possible that we would be engaged in nuclear war with Russia if this same crisis was presented to Bush. He would not have the insight, patience, discrimination and communication skills that Kennedy used so effectively to negotiate with Kruschev.
Helen
|
fenix03
|
posted on September 21, 2003 03:04:37 PM new
I think that Cuba got a victory as well in our promise not invade or to attemt to otherthrow Castros government.
I wonder if the missles would have ever actually been used. The one thing about nuclear war is that everyone knows there is no winner and I don't see any leader ever using them against another country since they know there will be retaliation and it will be on a devasting level. Had Cuba fired on us we could easily have blown that island into a wasteland and Castro knows that.
Has Castros view of the situation ever been made public in any interview or anything from his advisors at the time? I think that would be a fascinating read.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 21, 2003 03:08:04 PM new
dave - OBSOLETE missiles...not a big concession imo.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 21, 2003 03:10:51 PM new
helen...once again, you're all wet.
This president did state he wanted Afghanistan to turn over the AQ....OR else. He did give them time to turn them over...more time that Kennedy gave to Russia. The leaders of Afghanistan just decided to call Bush's bluff....and lost.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 21, 2003 03:15:42 PM new
One other issue that I'd like to note in the Cuban Missile Crisis...and that is this:
The Kennedy administration is unaware of a force which will eventually reach 40,000 men. American intelligence assumes that there are about 2,000 or 3,000 troops in Cuba to guard the missile sites. Nearly three decades will pass before the presence of this large Soviet force is revealed.
edited to also add: Three decades later a Soviet military spokesman would reveal that tactical nuclear weapons, nine Luna missiles and six mobile launchers with a range of thirty miles and the explosive power of half the Hiroshima bomb, had been available for use at the discretion of Soviet field commanders in the event of an American invasion.
So it looks like even in 1962 our intelligence wasn't so reliable. But just like now....it's all we have to make decisions on at the time.
-------------
fenix - But the people of Cuba, under Castro, sure weren't winners in that situation, imo. No country where their people aren't free....are lucky, imo.
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 21, 2003 03:20 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 21, 2003 03:24:14 PM new
Has Castros view of the situation ever been made public in any interview or anything from his advisors at the time? I think that would be a fascinating read
I have no doubt helen can answer that one for you. She always appears to know what the US did wrong in any situation.  She can most likely give you Castro's side.
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 21, 2003 03:50:41 PM new
All ordinance is obsolete, there is always the biggest and best-est doomsday device on the drawing board set to replace the current state of the art device. (I postulate this: your thought processes are obsolete.) The point is there was a negotiated settlement which afforded both sides the ability to save face and spin it the way they wished at the time and for history. It was a good settlement no one died as a direct result of the process.
You may not get it right but you sure can wave that flag.
Republican, the other white meat!
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on September 21, 2003 04:13:18 PM new
The lefties are full of crap as usual. Bush is showing amazing restraint with North Korea and Iran. Too much restraint, in my opinion.
Iran's nuclear reacter should be rubble by now and we should be blockading North Korea.
I wonder how Al Gore would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis. He probably would have ran up the white flag and surrendered to the Russians.
Democrat hero Wesley Clark nearly started World War 3 with Russia. General Clark wanted to use force against the Russians who occupied the Sarajevo airport. Thank God a British officer refused to follow his orders and prevented a disaster. (Clark was forced to retire soon after)
It's not safe to vote Democrat!
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Sep 21, 2003 06:16 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 21, 2003 04:29:48 PM new
Thanks for the chuckle, dave.
You may not get it right but you sure can wave that flag. Yep....I wave it very proudly. I'm on America's side. You saying you're ashamed of your country's flag? Or maybe you're just pokin' fun at me because I support ANY president who's willing to take action when the US is put in any danger.
But the part that made me chuckle when I read your 'flag waving' comment, was because when Clark made his official anouncement that he was going to throw his hat into the ring, as a democrat, ALL the people around him were waving their American flags....proudly.....and I thought of all the times here where you guys had joked about the 'righties' waving their flags. Like there was something criminal about doing that.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 21, 2003 04:35:54 PM new
Linda, So much c&p, irrelevant to the question. You clearly misunderstand the question and my answer...again.
I know the history of Castro but I have no desire to discuss it with you or take directions from you to answer a question followed by a snide and dumb suggestion.
The original question asked by Fenix is a good one. We can only conclude, based on the history of this president that he could not handle the situation. That's frightening to think about! In case you missed my answer I'll repeat it.
Based on Bush's lack of patience and inability to negotiate as evidenced by his performance after 9/11 -- with his "bring em on mentality", it's very possible that we would be engaged in nuclear war with Russia if this same crisis was presented to Bush. He would not have the insight, patience, discrimination and communication skills that Kennedy used so effectively to negotiate with Kruschev.
Helen
|
fenix03
|
posted on September 21, 2003 04:48:56 PM new
Helen - if there are publications that delve into the Castro side of the conflit I really would appreciate it if you could point me towards them. This incident was before my time but the more I see and read about it, the more fascinated I am with it. We see the Russian side and the US side but Cuba and Castro were in a unique position of being pawn and target with no apparent voice. I would love to know more of that side of the story. They side that there are three sides to every conflict and in this case it is quite literally true.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
AuctionAce
|
posted on September 21, 2003 04:56:45 PM new
I think every nation that has nukes never seriously entertains using them ( except maybe North Korea because they have nothing to lose ). MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction is a policy to prevent any nation from actually using the doomsday weapons. It was scary that Reagan thought the US could survive a limited nuclear exchange. That seems to indicate that he might have seriously entertained the use of nukes. Bush is scary too. The nukes should be disarmed at all costs.
-------------- sig file ----------- Most costume jewelry is unsigned. After all, the vast majority of it was made to be worn a few times, then discarded. It wasn't made to be durable. --- The Fluffster
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:04:04 PM new
Fenix,
I probably know less than you do about Castro. After the Bay of Pigs, he was afraid of a U.S. invasion and with the Russian missiles, he felt secure. While the negotiation was in process, Castro shot down a US plane. That incident was seen by Kruschev as an indication that Castro was unstable and as a result, his support was withdrawn, along with the removal of the missiles. I agree that it would be interesting to read Castro's story from his viewpoint. I'm not familiar with any books about his life.
Helen
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:04:53 PM new
I read that Castro urged the Russians to fire their nukes at the US during the crisis.
I wonder how Carter and Mondale would have led the US in the 1980's. No doubt the Soviet Union would be alive and well today and we'd have a military similar to Canada's.
How about a President Al Gore instead of Bush? Now that's scary.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:07:05 PM new
helen - You're funny.....We can only conclude, based on the history of this president that he could not handle the situation. Who's this "we"???? You have a mouse in your pocket? Just because it's your conclusion, make it true.
Not sure why you always repeat yourself. But I'll repeat my answer to your statement too.
This president did state he wanted Afghanistan to turn over the AQ....OR else. He did give them time to turn them over...more time that Kennedy gave to Russia. The leaders of Afghanistan just decided to call Bush's bluff....and lost.
-------
And our President appears to be getting along quite well with Putin.
---------
And as far as Regan goes....he successfully did make a difference in the 'cold war'. "BRING DOWN THAT WALL." You guys just can't give well earned credit to anyone if they're not in your party. We are one country....and just like family who fight amongst themselves, when it comes to outside threats families usually come together to fight their enemies. But some of you lefties who post here....sure have a real warped view about who's side you appear, to me, to be on.
|
BEAR1949
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:15:46 PM new
All said & done, be very glad Clinton or Carter wasn't in office. We all would be speaking russican.
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. ~ Thomas Jefferson
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:19:23 PM new
Idiots are usually happy and think everything is funny!
Keep smiling, Linda!
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:23:33 PM new
oh....now helen's lowered herself to name calling. typical....and sooooo below that high pedestal you try so hard to stay up on.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:28:58 PM new
Oh, I step down from my pedestal every now and then. It feels so appropriate sometimes.
Helen
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:33:14 PM new
In reading this, your line was the best, davebraun... "Bush would have botched the negotiation had he even bothered to participate."
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:41:27 PM new
Yes, that was excellent!
Helen
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on September 21, 2003 05:58:09 PM new
Linda, are you joking about Reagan? When he said, "Mr. Gorbechev, bring down that wall", he was acting. Gorbechev was the one that wanted the wall down. People even started taking down pieces of the wall 2 weeks before his infamous statement, but somehow, wrongfully, most of the credit went to Reagan.
|
