The *last* great American president.

[whgates3]

if reagan was a puppet (which he was. a genuine babe-in-the-woods.  the bork nomination is evidence enough on that) then you cant lay the blame for criminal activites that took place under his watch on him.  George Sr on the other hand, ex-CIA boss, couldn't have missed what was going on.  if Sr is calling the shots in the W administration (looks like it) then he is effectively in his 4th term, 500 days shy of beating FDR

[Eagler]

so would the world like to the US to have a strong President ie Regan, Bush SR, Bush Jr
or a wimp -  harmless ie clinton?

which is better for the global community, as the rest of the world see it?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by koala
By far the most important thing that Kennedy did to solidify his "legacy" was take a bullet in the head.

Sometimes... you just have to sit back and admire the beauty of unfettered cynicism.

[whgates3]

Originally posted by Eagler
so would the world like to the US to have a strong President ie Regan, Bush SR, Bush Jr
or a wimp -  harmless ie clinton?

which is better for the global community, as the rest of the world see it?

yes, i would prefer an ineffective predisent to an effective one.
our governmemt is idiotic.  if it is being run by a nitwit then @least it can obey the hipcratic oath "...1st do no harm..."
a primping pretty boy like jfk is much better than an evil mastermind like nixon or lbj (clinton, btw, is more likley in the later rather than the former category you have put him in).  the way elections work, an actual good character winning is so unlikley that the possibility is almost worth ignoring.
the "global community" can take care of itself. every nation has a government whose responibility is to look out for the good of their state

[Toad]

Would Castro have felt the need for Russian nukes had there been no Kennedy administration sponsored Bay of Pigs?

Had Kennedy's administration supported the Bay of Pigs operation (as he led the invaders to believe he would) with Naval airpower (which was airborne and ready when the T-33's showed up) and naval guns, would Bay of Pigs possibly have succeeded, thus making the Russian nuke issue moot?

So, in the end we were saved by Kennedy from a mess created by?

Yep, you guessed it.

[Yeager]

I always thought the Soviet placement of tactical nukes in Cuba was a direct reaction to the tactical nukes NATO placed in Turkey.

I also thought the Soviet goal was to force the removal of the Turkey nukes by agreeing to remove the nukes from Cuba.

If this scenario is true then the Soviets got what they wanted and forced Kennedy to play their hand.  Pretty damned smart but I dont know the truth of it.

[weazel]

You just pulled the teeth of toads argument, you really are a lefty.  

[Toad]

Not exactly. Castro's revolution "succeeded" on New Year's Day of '59. In February of '60 Castro signed an agreement with Russia for large amounts of credit. Eisenhower's administration started the ball rolling on the overthrow of Castro in 1960. Kennedy took office in January of 1961 and enthusiastically continued the work of the Eisenhower administration. By 19 April 1961 the debacle was over and the US was shamed before the entire world.

Now, had Kennedy NOT authorized the Bay of Pigs operation, or had he supported it as he said it would and had it thus succeeded would their have been Russian missiles in Cuba?

I think not; you're welcome to your own opinion.

Had Bay of Pigs succeeded, the Russian missile issues is a non-starter. Lack of US support insured that it would not.

Had it not occurred, I'm doubtful Castro would have let the Russians place missiles in Cuba. He had to know that with Russian nukes in Cuba he was giving up a huge part of his sovereignity to Moscow. He was pretty sharp, credit where credit is due. He knew it was more advantageous for Cuba to continue to play the US off against the USSR. Bay of Pigs made that play impossible for him, though.

Nonethe less, Bay of Pigs was a Kennedy administration mistake of incredible proportions. Who knows if the embarassment they suffered there led directly to involvement in Viet Nam, thinking to restore their image?

Just my opinion.

[whgates3]

kennedy was so full of booze & pills he was probably just continuing to let the CIA run the show.
michael corleone he wasn't

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by whgates3
you're both wrong.
Gorbachev ended the cold war .
he gave his people a bit of freedom & naturally they eliminated their vindicitve authoritarian government.
i expect he knew what he was doing.
the USA did nothing to end the cold war other than set an example of how life could be better than the tyranny that was the soviet union.
if the soviets had another brehznev instead of good 'ol Gorby, they'd still be a communist dictatorship.

Saying Gorby ended the cold war is the same as saying Tyson ending the Lennox fight by being knocked out.

It is amazing that the USSR kept up militarily with the US for so long.  The economy of the Soviets was about the same size as the Netherland's, and with 200,000,000 people to spread it among.

Reagan's increased military budget was the last straw, and Gorby saw that he could not keep up.  Reagan did not pitch the whole game, but he did come in for the last innings and he got the save.

Y'all notice I said nothing against JFK...