Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Greatest President of the United States.

Posted May 14, '13 at 5:10pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

He led you guys into the Bay of Pigs

At least he took responsibility for it, which is more than I can say about most modern presidents.

and had his term cut short

So did Lincoln. It's not like they were impeached or something.

 

Posted May 14, '13 at 11:13pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

At least he took responsibility for it, which is more than I can say about most modern presidents.

Accepting responsibility does little to avert the disaster and embarassment it was. It's not like if Bush admits his mistake, he would score political brownie points and redeem himself.

So did Lincoln. It's not like they were impeached or something.

You missed the point. Having a shorter term means a few less years to mess up, and in Kennedy's case, an assassination that brings forth waves of sympathy.

 

Posted May 14, '13 at 11:14pm

JeffK3

JeffK3

292 posts

He led you guys into the Bay of Pigs

You know why he did that? If not keep reading. The SOVIETS were bring ICBMs into Cuba. The only way to make the Russians stop doing something is to stick it to them. Show that you are not going to back down to their actions. JFK was thereby preventing a means to a nuclear war. If you don't realize that Russia wouldn't have just Nuked America, they would have nuked all of NATO, which the U.S. was pretty much the gorgon's head in the whole thing. Also if Bay of Pigs hadn't happened we could literaly be living in the world of Fallout.

 

Posted May 14, '13 at 11:19pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

You know why he did that? If not keep reading. The SOVIETS were bring ICBMs into Cuba. The only way to make the Russians stop doing something is to stick it to them. Show that you are not going to back down to their actions. JFK was thereby preventing a means to a nuclear war. If you don't realize that Russia wouldn't have just Nuked America, they would have nuked all of NATO, which the U.S. was pretty much the gorgon's head in the whole thing. Also if Bay of Pigs hadn't happened we could literaly be living in the world of Fallout.

And you know why the Russians brought ICBMs into Cuba? Partially because Kennedy stuck ICBMs in Turkey, right at their borders in 1962, so close they were that Khruschev could see them when he visited Bulgaria. So no, were they victims? No.

 

Posted May 14, '13 at 11:53pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

Accepting responsibility does little to avert the disaster and embarassment it was.

It's hella better than "I didn't know about it, no involvement, not my fault, nor my problem, nope nope nope, finger pointing time".

Having a shorter term means a few less years to mess up

And a few less years to do great things like the space program.

Also if Bay of Pigs hadn't happened we could literaly be living in the world of Fallout.

BoP did little. The blockade was what did it.

 

Posted May 14, '13 at 11:56pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

It's hella better than "I didn't know about it, no involvement, not my fault, nor my problem, nope nope nope, finger pointing time".

And so? Yes, it makes him better than Bush, but it doesn't make up for the fact that he ordered an illegal invasion.

And a few less years to do great things like the space program.

If you don't screw up.

BoP did little. The blockade was what did it.

BoP did nothing but strengthen Cuban resolve.

 

Posted May 15, '13 at 12:48am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

but it doesn't make up for the fact that he ordered an illegal invasion.

When hasn't that come with the job? It seems like a rite of passage.
Johnson wasn't exactly open about Vietnam. A more transparent leadership during that time would've been nice:
"The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted.[97]"

increased involvement in Vietnam

And he planned on reducing it:

"As President, Lyndon Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM No. 273 on November 26, 1963.[94][95][96] Johnson expanded the numbers and roles of the American military following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident"
"By the end of 1964, there were approximately 23,000 military personnel in South Vietnam."
"By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were in Vietnam"

If you don't screw up.

Of course, early on there were many problems and failures anyway, but it ultimately led to success.

[stuff in quotes is from here]

 

Posted May 15, '13 at 12:54am

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

8,090 posts

Moderator

Millard Fillmore gave us video games, cellphones, and anime. All your arguments are invalid :|

 

Posted May 15, '13 at 1:02am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

increased involvement in Vietnam

He was against using US troops as fighters in the war itself instead of for training and advising:

Kennedy's policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences." -here

Millard Fillmore gave us video games, cellphones, and anime. All your arguments are invalid :|

And now children are addicted to all three. It's a conspiracy I tells ya!

 

Posted May 15, '13 at 1:19am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

When hasn't that come with the job? It seems like a rite of passage.
Johnson wasn't exactly open about Vietnam. A more transparent leadership during that time would've been nice:
"The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted.[97]"

And so? The main point here is that a war was started, for no good reason other than the fact that the Cubans were considered to be messing about in America's sphere of influence. That hardly qualifies as a great president material, especially taking account the fact that the invasion was a rousing failure.

And he planned on reducing it:

"As President, Lyndon Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM No. 273 on November 26, 1963.[94][95][96] Johnson expanded the numbers and roles of the American military following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident"
"By the end of 1964, there were approximately 23,000 military personnel in South Vietnam."
"By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were in Vietnam"

In 1961, Kennedy agreed that America should finance an increase in the size of the South Vietnamese Army from 150,000 to 170,000. He also agreed that an extra 1000 US military advisors should be sent to South Vietnam to help train the South Vietnamese Army.

Yes, he did advocate withdrawing, but that does not indicate a scaling down of operations in Vietnam. In fact, by sponsoring the Vietnamese army, and becoming more entangled in Vietnamese polices (Strategic Hamlet Initiative for example), it indicates a greater amount of interference and escalation.  Training, financial and logistical support does not amount to a scaling down of operations.

Furthermore, his Vietnam policy was a failure. The Strategic Hamlet program was rushed, badly planned and badly executed. Peasants were forced into hastily built, ''secure'' compounds to deny the NLF support and supplies; destroying their traditional village life, and sending them straight into the arms of the communists.

 
Reply to Greatest President of the United States.

You must be logged in to post a reply!