We don't negotiate with terrorists... - Page 2

Wagner · #11 06-17-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Funny how your order of things is mixed up. The missles were put there BECAUSE of the Bay of Pigs invasion. And the exiles who were invading were indeed backed up by an air attack which killed approximately 4000 Cubans. Their problem was that they were under the illusion that once they landed, the general populace would join their cause. But instead, the exact opposite happened. The general populace, many of who were armed, joined with the Cuban military to defeat them in very short order.

As for JFK's involvement, it was very little. He gave his approval for the operation, yet the CIA lied to him about almost every aspect of it. When he found out, he went public with this and then fired Allen Dulles, head of the CIA since its inception.

In the months following this whole fiasco, JFK issued a number of executive orders which totally changed the way our intelligence agencies operate. At the time, the intelligence agencies were simply running wild with covert ops, assasinations, rigging of election, industrial sabotage, etc. JFK announced publicly he was going to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces, but all it took was a single executive order, which stated that the joint chiefs would be held personally responsible for all actions taken by or on behalf of the intelligence agencies. This executive order was reversed within 24 hours of LBJ taking office.

The amount of changes JFK made to our government in his 34 months in office is astounding. If he had stayed in power a full 8 years, our country -- and the world -- would have been transformed. Instead, LBJ reversed the course and let the war machine and the intelligence agencies go back to causing havoc around the world.

As for Obama, how many times do I have to say. I AM NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA. Why does everyone keep thinking that I am voting for the guy?

Whoa Oliver Stone. If you think Kennedy provide all the Air he was telling he'd cover..you're very mistaken. Same philosophy Clinton used in 93 with Somalia "oh I don't want a big campaign". The reason soviets backed off was because we agreed to move missiles from their borders. In their defense, you park them in my back yard..I'm parking them in yours.

PS: I don't believe you'd vote for Obama

OT but Clinton's SECDEF on Somalia:

Quote:

Defence Secretary Les Aspin has stated that US forces will not remain in Somalia longer than necessary. But speaking on CBS he cautioned:

"It's important not to withdraw in a way that, 18 months later, people will say, 'Well, it never made any difference'."

No matter who is in office, the same jargon comes out.

B-Line · #12 06-17-2008, 09:21 PM

Eric,

As always, your logic ceases to amaze me.

*Negotiate with terrorists* and *Agree to a cease fire* are not the same thing. Were you home schooled ?

Meiac09 · #13 06-18-2008, 01:34 AM

Eric5273 · #14 06-18-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

*Negotiate with terrorists* and *Agree to a cease fire* are not the same thing.

According to all the articles, there are various "conditions" to the cease fire. I wonder how those conditions came to exist without negotiations.

In the news 2 days ago:

Intense diplomatic activity involving Israel, Syria and Hamas

For us dumb uneducated folks, perhaps you can explain what "diplomatic activity" is??

Also, doesn't Israel call Syria a "terrorist state"?

Eric5273 · #15 06-18-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

Whoa Oliver Stone....

No conspiracy theories here. Everything I wrote in that post is fact. I can post the executive order numbers if you want. They are all public record since the JFK Act was passed 15 years ago. Within 48 hours of LBJ taking office, he executed about half a dozen executive orders, all which overturned previous orders passed by JFK. The most significant of them were the recinding of JFK's intelligence memo and the reversal of the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam.

Wagner · #16 06-18-2008, 11:25 AM

Well it's partial fact. They did offer some air cover, but not what was intended.

Eric5273 · #17 06-18-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

Well it's partial fact. They did offer some air cover, but not what was intended.

Bombing enough to kill 4,000 Cubans sounds like pretty good air cover to me. The reality is that it wouldn't have mattered. The exiles claimed they would seen as liberators, and of course they were not (doesn't this sound familiar?). If they had bombed more, the result would have been a lot more dead Cubans. It would not have changed the final picture any.

Wagner · #18 06-18-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Bombing enough to kill 4,000 Cubans sounds like pretty good air cover to me. The reality is that it wouldn't have mattered. The exiles claimed they would seen as liberators, and of course they were not (doesn't this sound familiar?). If they had bombed more, the result would have been a lot more dead Cubans. It would not have changed the final picture any.

I'd agree that they thought they would be accepted differently.

However, proper air cover can save anything especially back in the 60's.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode