If you were American who would you vote for?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Azure

Kennedy started everything....but like you said, it is debatable. Still doesn't take away from the fact that he was an inspiring person. Calgaryborn...we can find faults with every President. People are kidding themselves if they think Obama, Hillary or Rudy will be perfect.

Nobodys perfect but it just seems to me that Kennedy gets a free ride because he was a pretty boy and died in office. His famous line "ask not what your country can do for you but, rather what you can do for your country" is remembered and rightly heralded but, people seem to forget what he asked Americans to do. He did lead his party to the right side of the civil rights issues, though. I will give him that.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Nobodys perfect but it just seems to me that Kennedy gets a free ride because he was a pretty boy and died in office. His famous line "ask not what your country can do for you but, rather what you can do for your country" is remembered and rightly heralded but, people seem to forget what he asked Americans to do. He did lead his party to the right side of the civil rights issues, though. I will give him that.

No credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile crisis?

[Bobblehead]

I think people are making too much of the "first female president" thing.
1) There are already examples of women successfully leading countries (Margaret Thatcher)
2) People should be looking at the candidate's positions on the issues, not on what is or isn't between their legs.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

No credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile crisis?

Was the missile crisis caused simply by the Soviet's desire to get an upper hand in the cold war or was it Castral's(sp) response to America's policies against him? I don't know. I also don't remember how long Kennedy was in power before the crisis. So I'm not sure if his policies could have contributed to the crisis.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

No credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile crisis?

I almost forgot about that too. JFK is an old school democrat...someone I would vote for in a heartbeat.

[Bobblehead]

The Cuban Missle Crisis was the USSR's response to the US putting mid-range nuclear missles in Turkey. If the US could put Nukes on USSR's doorstep, the USSR wanted to be able to do the same; and after the Bay of Pigs, Castro was ammenable to anything that would provide additional protection from the US.

1961 was an eventful year.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

The Cuban Missle Crisis was the USSR's response to the US putting mid-range nuclear missles in Turkey. If the US could put Nukes on USSR's doorstep, the USSR wanted to be able to do the same; and after the Bay of Pigs, Castro was ammenable to anything that would provide additional protection from the US.

1961 was an eventful year.

So it could be said that Kennedy created the crisis but, also reacted well
to it when it came along.

[CaramonLS]

I know that planning for the Bay of Pigs was already authorized by Ike during his presidency, that is really when the plan came into place and materialized. Kennedy inherited that CIA OP.

Missiles in Turkey, I'm not 100% sure about - whether or not it was negoitated by Ike or whether Kennedy had an intergral part in putting the missiles there, but both of those things happened in 1961, during the first year of his presidency.

Credit has to go to Kennedy, even if he might have gotten himself into the situation for ignoring the other options which were presented to him about the Cuban Missiles Crisis, which were being recommended by the Military, which included a full scale invasion and Stratigic bombing of the Missles. The stratigic bombing in particular would have been a disaster, since it turns out the U-2 planes hadn't fully scouted the entire island and it turns out there were already missiles in advanced stages of deployment. It could have easily led to a counter attack if he had chosen the military option.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I think people are making too much of the "first female president" thing.
1) There are already examples of women successfully leading countries (Margaret Thatcher)
2) People should be looking at the candidate's positions on the issues, not on what is or isn't between their legs.

Yes and no. In regards to equal representation, the US lags behind a lot of other nations. In the almost 300 years it's been around, the US has only ever had old white dudes running the country. If they were to elect a female or a black man, and that person were then to be considered a good president, you might see more equality in other areas.

You're right, people should be looking at a person's stance on isses and not their skin colour or sex. However, the fact is, they aren't. That alone should tell you the state of equality in the US.

Either one of Obama or Clinton would make an excellent president. The question is which barrier do they want to break first? The colour barrier or the sex barrier? Or are they too afraid of change to do either and will stick with what they know?

[Bobblehead]

I'm not here to deride Kennedy. Ike absolutely got the ball rolling. But Kennedy altered the plan somewhat for political purposes (along with other parties - there was plenty of blame to go around, although much of it was revealed after the fact), so the plan, as it was when initially approved by Eisenhower, was not the operation the occurred in April '61.

And the whole cold war was ongoing long before Kennedy came to office. Missiles in Turkey was just the next step in the escalation. I don't think it matters who was President, the cold war was going to continue to escalate in one way or another.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I know that planning for the Bay of Pigs was already authorized by Ike during his presidency, that is really when the plan came into place and materialized. Kennedy inherited that CIA OP.

Missiles in Turkey, I'm not 100% sure about - whether or not it was negoitated by Ike or whether Kennedy had an intergral part in putting the missiles there, but both of those things happened in 1961, during the first year of his presidency.

Credit has to go to Kennedy, even if he might have gotten himself into the situation for ignoring the other options which were presented to him about the Cuban Missiles Crisis, which were being recommended by the Military, which included a full scale invasion and Stratigic bombing of the Missles. The stratigic bombing in particular would have been a disaster, since it turns out the U-2 planes hadn't fully scouted the entire island and it turns out there were already missiles in advanced stages of deployment. It could have easily led to a counter attack if he had chosen the military option.

Well I suppose that in any case, Kennedy authorized both. Yes he should be given some credit for his handling of the crisis. But perhaps more should be given to the Soviets for backing down. If they hadn't I wonder if Kennedy's success would instead be seen as his worse failure.

[feartheflames]

Originally Posted by Juventus3

Did anyone watch the democratic debate from cnn/youtube last week? Very, very encouraging ideas coming out of that party IMO. They'll be in the whitehouse come next Jan.

I think Obama would do an outstanding job on international relations despite his short (er) record. The youthfulness he brings out is great. His ideas are what the US needs right now more than ever. His ideas to tackle healthcare are bold to say the least, but I actually trust this politian...which is something I haven't been able to say about anyone in politics in a long time, US or Canada.

I am Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Our strong connections to the US make this election almost as important to us as them...

I though those debates were excellent, very entertaining and to thr point, some of those question you just couldn't weasele out of. Clinton and Obama totally stole the show though IMO.

[feartheflames]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Reminds me of a scene from Battlestar Galactica:

"I will not serve under a man who questions my integrity," says Lee Adama, tossing his wings onto the desk.

"And I will not have under my command a man who doesn't have any," says Admiral Adama, scooping the wings up and into his desk drawer.

My choice would be Billary Clinton . . . . . time for a woman to lead everyone around by the nose.

But I do like the thought about Bloomberg though.

Obama may be a great president some day but Hillary really exposed his inexperience and naivety with the gaffe about dealing first hand with propoganda opportunist chumps like Kim Il Jong. Wow. I couldn't believe he said that. So far, the only thing I've seen from Obama is that he's riding on the coattails of one great speech given a couple of years ago. But it's still a great day when a man of colour is being judged by his character rather than the colour of his skin.

Cowperson

I think that was blown out of propotion, Obama seems to be an intelligent man and I am sure he woudl do his home work first, Obama hasn't flip flopped on issues, Hilary has. However, either one would be a great leader.

[LIP MAN]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Ya given the choice between them and Democrats, they are.

BTW Clinton did a real bang up job in Yugoslavia/Kosovo too... not surprisingly it never gets mentioned...

Kudos, that is one area where I think that administration handled things poorly. Understandably even with the fact that there was some real haziness given as to why certain missions and bombings occured. But to think that this current administration has been anything but an utter failure, both economically and policy wise, is looking past most major facts.

ie: Trying to push supply side economics with the amount of outsourcing and globalization going on, as well as the various scandals and lack of accountablility when purported scandals and functions of the government are being probed and/or investigated for starters.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well I suppose that in any case, Kennedy authorized both. Yes he should be given some credit for his handling of the crisis. But perhaps more should be given to the Soviets for backing down. If they hadn't I wonder if Kennedy's success would instead be seen as his worse failure.

The Soviets didn't exactly back down despite it being reported that way in the west. Pravda, I'm sure, reported it as a great victory as they got the USA to pull their missiles out of Turkey. Still Kennedy deserves a lot of admitation for negotiating under extreme pressure, especially from the military.

The thing I remember about Kennedy was he could think on his feet and was open to new ideas. He wasn't an idealogue and although he started most of the USAs involvment in Viet Nam, I like to think that he would have had the smarts to back off a lot earlier then Johnson and Nixon did. Another thing that has to be understood is the freight train of previous policy and cold war emotion pushing American policies. They couldn't be changed in two years.

Kennedy was also the first Catholic elected president. Nobody now thinks it such a big deal but in a WASP controlled culture, it was. The propoganda was that he would be controlled by the Pope.

[Eddie Bronze]

If Hilary Clinton should ever win, I wonder who she would hire to intern?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

I almost forgot about that too. JFK is an old school democrat...someone I would vote for in a heartbeat.

I wasn't aware that Kennedy campaigned against civil rights.

Learn something new every day, I guess...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Kennedy started everything....but like you said, it is debatable. Still doesn't take away from the fact that he was an inspiring person. Calgaryborn...we can find faults with every President. People are kidding themselves if they think Obama, Hillary or Rudy will be perfect.

Vietnam became a foreign policy issue closely following the second world war, and was almost certainly going to become a 'problem', especially following the Korean War. The Truman Doctrine can be blamed just as easily as LBJ, Ike or JFK can be, as can lesser known historical figures like Dean Acheson and Robert McNamara.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Vietnam became a foreign policy issue closely following the second world war, and was almost certainly going to become a 'problem', especially following the Korean War. The Truman Doctrine can be blamed just as easily as LBJ, Ike or JFK can be, as can lesser known historical figures like Dean Acheson and Robert McNamara.

The French occupation of Vietnam and our loyalty to them also had a lot to do with it. The slaughter of some French soldiers and others got the whole ball rolling.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Vietnam became a foreign policy issue closely following the second world war, and was almost certainly going to become a 'problem', especially following the Korean War. The Truman Doctrine can be blamed just as easily as LBJ, Ike or JFK can be, as can lesser known historical figures like Dean Acheson and Robert McNamara.

It takes a sitting President to deploy troops into combat. Motives aside Kennedy is responsible for America entering Vietnam. Wasn't it Truman who said "the buck stops here". Carter and Reagan are examples of other Presidents who change course on foreign policy during their tenor in the White house. If Kennedy can be excused from Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, and the deployment of nukes in Turkey because he was just following previous policy then that very same arguement can be used to demonstrate his poor leadership as President.

I guess I'm playing the devil's advocate a little here. I don't think Kennedy
was a terrible President. I just get tired of hearing about his presumed greatness. The world was lucky to survive his Presidency.