At 3/6/08 01:31 AM, TheMason wrote:
1) Wars are the product of political agreements and decisions. When these are made they commit a country to a course of action. For example, we are committed to fight N. Korea in the event of a resumption of hostilities. [Don't make me break my New Year's Resolution about touting my Cred! ;) ]
Only we're not committed to North Korea in the event of hostilities. There are alternatives to declaring war on aggressive nations.
2) War involves more than one country; therefore quotes from the adversary's political leaders and institutions are not dramatic but rather relevant. (Basic scholarship...but nice try at obfuscation.)
How exactly was the quote "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid" Relevant at all? You're quotes we're completely irrelevant, off topic, and added for dramatic effect.
3) JFK had more options than a naval blockade; there was always "back-door diplomacy" in which members of the administration actually tried talking to the Soviets behind the scenes rather than resort to a military option as the first resort.
Yes, JFK had more options, I've never denied this, that doesn't mean the Naval Blockade wasn't the best solution. And "back-door diplomacy" WAS what happened after the Blockade. Negotiating before the blockade, would have been futile.
4) Signing the Declaration of Independence meant that the loss of property and if caught death for treason to the crown. And yes you DID say that the founding fathers didn't put their lives on the line:
Lol, I hope you realize that's the same as saying: " Yeah, the founding fathers don't deserve any special credit for writing the constitution, all they did was speak some words and sign some papers, some other US colonists would have done it eventually anyways". (Emphasis mine)
Actually, that wasn't me making a historical statement about the Founding Fathers, that was me making a statement about the understatement of effort that went towards establishing the Apollo project under JFK.
You are responding to my criticism that JFK didn't put his ass on the line w/the space program and then parroted my inflamatory remark...thereby parroting the sentiment and meaning.
No, your statement suggested that JFK doesn't deserve credit, because any president could have accomplished that. My statement was a mockery of your statement, showing that you that the same thing could be applied to any great accomplishment (if you want to call the violent US revolution an accomplishment, which is debatable).
The Founding Fathers & the Constitution and JFK & the moon are fundamentally different.
Not in this context.
In the case of the founding, you have people who were directly engaged in diplomacy, warfighting and building a new government. In the case of JFK he was not involved with designing the rocket or testing it or flying the mission beyond signing the bill that authorizied it. Finally, JFK inherited a government that included all the necessary structures while the founding was making something from nothing. Furthermore, the idea of a moon mission was articulated in 1960 before JFK was president. In fact, once he was in office he started having second thoughts when he saw the bill.
And none the less, despite all this JFK was still the president who established the moon landing project, which is why he is rightfully accredited to it. Eisenhower didn't personally design and construct NASA, but he is credited for being the president who created it.
5) Space Program refers to a structure larger than a single mission. Therefore, it is not overly obvious what you are talking about...you are abusing the term. You should have said "The Apollo Program" or the "Moon Mission". Then when I pointed out the error you should have admitted to being unclear rather than making a feable attempt at making it sound like you knew what you were doing all along.
Given that the discussion was over the moon landing from the very beginning, unless you have some sort of mental defect, you should have naturally realized that Space Program in this context referred to the Apollo program. I'm guessing that you didn't have a mental defect, you did understand what Space Program meant, and you decided to pick at it anyways and try to pass it off as a valid debate tactic. Too bad it blew up in your face.
6) It is obvious that you lack understanding of Vietnam beyond a basic timeline. Furthermore, it is obvious that you lack understanding of international relations.
And yet you can't list a single reason why. Hey, here's something: It's obvious that you're not in fact as qualified to make these assumptions as you claim to be. Oh, and it's also obvious that you lack a complete understanding of everything. Ever. Oh, and it's also VERY obvious that you're not even human, just some weird alien from the planet VEGETA here to reap human souls and kick puppies.
7) No offense but you sound like a 12 year old meeting a paleontologist and telling said academic he's wrong because the Raptor is his favorite dinosaur and the kid knows "...every in and out of it." You're wrong in that you appear to think that a naval blockade was the only option open to JFK.
Only problem here being the self-proclaimed paleontologist is getting the ass beating of his life from the 12 your old kid because it turns out the kid in fact did know more about the raptor. Oh and in response to the only valid part of that last statement of yours: You're wrong in that you appear to think that a naval blockade was the only option open to JFK. I've actually already stated that there were other options open to JFK. I even said earlier that his cabinet at first unanimously agreed that invading Cuba was the only option.
Another thing you're wrong on: I have more education than Robert McNamara. In terms of defense experience; I'm not trailing him by much there.
Well lets see, McNamara had a master's from an extension of Harvard during the time of the Cuban missile crisis, and about 3 years of military service during WW2 (left with the rank of lieutenant colonel) + AND almost a year under the position of secretary of defense. I'll call bullshit.
8) Sorry, no matter how you try to sematically dodge the issue JFK did NOT create a space program. Had the Soviets not sent Yuri Gagarin into space, JFK may not have been so keen on spending the money. In fact Congress acted faster than JFK to authorize a crash program to put a man on the moon.
You covered this in point 5.
9) Consider my technical acumen good preparation for college.
Actually I was fully aware that someone else was the one to formally introduce the bill.
Furthermore, the president NOT having the legislative power to introduce legislation is no small technicality.
Yes it is, especially seeing as he was the one who sent the bill to Congress. Which once again: in the informal sense could be viewed as introducing the bill.
It indicates a serious misunderstanding of how the government works and strongly implies the person making the error does not know what he's talking about. But nice attempt at lashing out at me and acting as if pointing out your erroneous understanding somehow reduces my credibility.
Uh, it does reduce your credibility, since I wasn't referring at all to the formal meaning of introducing a bill to congress. These petty, drawn out side arguments you've been making have proven nothing more than you're ability to nitpick at small technicalities, diverting from the issue at hand.