Be a Supporter!

Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win

  • 1,565 Views
  • 95 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 08:25 PM Reply

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.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 08:27 PM Reply

10) Actually, the IDEAS included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act where first articulated by the REPUBLICAN's Civil Rights Act of 1875. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was declared unconstitutional because it related to private organizations rather than federal or state government. In the 89 years between the two bills (which when added to the Fair Housing Act are remarkably similar) SCOTUS had expanded Constituional Rights to protect individuals against private organizations as well as public institutions.

Yes, it is well known that the 1964 civil rights act borrowed ideas from the civil rights act of 1875, but there were still crucial difference between the two. For example: segregation would have been possible under the civil rights act of 1875, since it only stated that all people should be treated equally despite race, gender etc. (which fits quite nicely into the concept of separate but equal).

Also I like how REPUBLICAN is in all caps. Trying to make a statement? Do you think I like JFK just because he's a democrat?


BTW: You are right, my statement that JFK could not get the legislation passed is speculation. However, it is a speculation shared (and taught) by my fellow academics.

I'm sure the credibility of that argument could be debated. Either way, it doesn't matter because the accomplishment JFK made was to introduce the Civil Rights Act to the nation; not to pass it.

At 3/6/08 01:50 PM, TheMason wrote: You see much has happened since the CMC and we know more than McNamara, JFK, etc did at the time and (in the case of those who died before 1992) ever did. When the USSR fell new information about what was going on in the Kremlin came out. You see Kruschev was the first to miscalculate. He fully intended to put the missiles there and then negotiate their removal in exchange for the removal of US missiles from Turkey. He never thought that JFK would push a military solution...he expected a quiet (non-public), negotiated settlement. He never expected the communique: pull out or we invade.

BULL SHIT. Khrushchev put the missiles in cuba in order to have faster first strike capabilities than the US. Khrushchev would have NEVER removed the missiles if it hadn't been for the naval blockade. I'm not sure what you mean by "new information", but it's bullshit. Someone's trying to revise history (might be your supposed source, might be you), and whoever it is, is totally full of shit.

JFK's response was to lead with a military solution rather than leading with diplomacy. Furthermore, he did a ballsy move with ordering a naval blockade (an act of war) and calling it quarantine. But ballsy is often irresponsible (as it was in this case). The fact is there were miscalculations on both sides; but missiles were not in the air. A military response moving us closer and faster to nuclear war was not a good choice so early in the crisis. Yes, he did turn down the Joint Chief's recommendation to invade. However, he still ratcheted up the tensions by coming dangerously close to committing an act of war.

Yes, it was an act of war. But JFK knew the Soviet Union wasn't going to cause the deaths of billions of people over a naval blockade. Now, the invasion of Cuba would have been an irresponsible move. The naval blockade was the best choice.


The fact that Kruschev was drunk may indicate that he was not in control of his country does not mean that this is the reality....this was the interpretation of US actors who were essentially making guesses about what was going on inside the USSR.

Oh for gods sake... are you kidding? It wasn't Khrushchev being drunk that indicated he wasn't in control of his government. It was the fact that the second message was obviously not written by Khrushchev. His authority in the Kremlin was already being undermined. Khrushchev would have never negotiated without the blockade.

And this is the point, at the time JFK and his advisors were making calculations about what was the intent and what was going on in the Kremlin. These calculations were based off of ignorance; they did not know what was going on in the Kremlin or Kruschev's mind (no one in the West new this until the USSR collapsed).

How exactly was the analysis based off of ignorance? We know for a fact that Khrushchev would never have been able to perform this stunt that you're claiming. You're basing YOUR analysis off of ignorance.

It is because you very rarely know what's going on behind the scenes of your adversary's government that you do not lead with a military response. What JFK did was foolhardy and irresponsible.

What JFK did was brilliant, and given the response was absolutely the best maneuver anyone could have made in that situation. We knew the Russian's were rational, we knew they would never declare war over something as limited as a naval blockade, and we also knew that blockading would not only stop the missiles from being constructed, but also give us better leverage in negotiation.


You see JFK learned from his mistake/miscalculation and he never took such a hardline stance with the Soviets again.

Speculation

JFK made the right decision in the CMC, and he knew that he made the right decision.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

Buffalow
Buffalow
  • Member since: Jun. 5, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 10:23 PM Reply

Okay Musician, enough with the JFK crap.

I think this thread needs to end, just a flame war over JFK really.


Well-a Everybody's Heard About the Word, Tha-Tha-Tha Word-Word-Word the Word is the.....

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 7th, 2008 @ 02:09 AM Reply

At 3/6/08 08:27 PM, Musician wrote:
At 3/6/08 01:50 PM, TheMason wrote: You see much has happened since the CMC and we know more than McNamara, JFK, etc did at the time and (in the case of those who died before 1992) ever did. When the USSR fell new information about what was going on in the Kremlin came out. You see Kruschev was the first to miscalculate. He fully intended to put the missiles there and then negotiate their removal in exchange for the removal of US missiles from Turkey. He never thought that JFK would push a military solution...he expected a quiet (non-public), negotiated settlement. He never expected the communique: pull out or we invade.
BULL SHIT. Khrushchev put the missiles in cuba in order to have faster first strike capabilities than the US. Khrushchev would have NEVER removed the missiles if it hadn't been for the naval blockade. I'm not sure what you mean by "new information", but it's bullshit. Someone's trying to revise history (might be your supposed source, might be you), and whoever it is, is totally full of shit.

This is my last statement on the JFK debate.

You have just proven that you are out of your league. The "new information" I'm referring to is the FACT that the fall of the USSR has allowed scholars in the West to examine what was going on in Moscow during the CMC. This is not information that neither JFK nor his advisors had access to during the CMC and in regards to those who died before 1992...probably never had access to during their lifetime.

This is not ideological revisionism but rather scholars being able to compare the decision making and thought processes of leaders on BOTH sides of the conflict.

What you keep throwing at me is the perceived intentions of the USSR leadership as perceived by JFK and his advisors. This is important stuff and cannot be discounted. However, once people in the West were allowed to see what Kruschev et al the picture of those thirteen days has been altered and many scholars (not all) are now thinking that while JFK was a cool head relative to the likes of Gen LeMay...he still acted rashly and emotionally.

In cases like the CMC where there is insignificant or no immediate danger, you try things like back-door diplomacy first to make sure that your not miscalculating the adversary's intentions. You do this while quietly sending the 10th Mountain Div to Georgia and steaming the fleet to the Carribean. You send the Soviet Embassy the recon photos and say what do you want to get these the hell out of the Western hemisphere without us "quarantining" or invading Cuba. You do this to test the waters outside of the public view.

BTW: The Raptor, contrary to popular belief, was a herbivore. :P


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
canadaloveswhiskey
canadaloveswhiskey
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 7th, 2008 @ 04:03 AM Reply

You know, if I was Obama, I would be scared shitless, you got to admire a man who would run in a country where there is a deep ingrained mistrust of minorities, especially in the deep south. Yes I'm canadian, but I am black and have visited Missippi several times to see family so I at least know second hand the kind of discrimination that can occur there.

Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 7th, 2008 @ 07:19 PM Reply

At 3/7/08 02:09 AM, TheMason wrote: This is my last statement on the JFK debate.

You have just proven that you are out of your league. The "new information" I'm referring to is the FACT that the fall of the USSR has allowed scholars in the West to examine what was going on in Moscow during the CMC. This is not information that neither JFK nor his advisors had access to during the CMC and in regards to those who died before 1992...probably never had access to during their lifetime.

Yeah, I'd like to see a source for that. I think you've basically proven that whatever your sources are, are unreliable. I call bullshit for 2 reasons:

1) Because it contradicts everything I've ever read on the Cuban Missile Crisis (partisan has nothing to do with it, I haven't seen a single source say what you're saying)
2) I talked with the smartest history teacher i know to see what he thought about your claim, he said it was false

So sorry if I don't take this "because I said so" argument very seriously, because nothing I have ever heard supports it.

As for your claims on JFK acting rashly, as I've explained before, he did not. The naval blockade, although an act of war, was the right choice to make. It was necessary to have a balance of military and diplomatic action.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs