What IF JFK, RFK and EMK all had 2 terms as president?

[Conserative Morality]

I'm sorry, I fail to see "started nuclear war" anywhere in there.

JFK had shown that he was willing to take needless gambles with Russia, why should I assume that he wouldn't take that risk again? We came closer to Nuclear Armageddon during the Cuba Missile Crisis than most people think.

Please show me where, in any of my posts, I said Kennedy did start a Nuclear war.

[The_pantless_hero]

Please show me where, in any of my posts, I said Kennedy did start a Nuclear war.

That's irrelevant.

We'd be a Nuclear Wasteland.

[Conserative Morality]

Please show me where, in any of my posts, I said Kennedy did start a Nuclear war.

That's irrelevant.

We'd be a Nuclear Wasteland.

I'm sorry, I fail to see "started nuclear war" anywhere in there.

You have been accusing me of accusing JFK of starting a Nuclear War, which is false. But you'd never admit that, would you?

I've only said that if JFK had two terms, we most likely would have had another fuck-up, and this one wouldn't have turned out quite as lucky for JFK.

[Thethunderdome]

I'm sure if JFK had taken a softer stance on the Russians you'd be lambasting that instead.

Nope, not at all. Instead, I'd be attacking him for beginning a stupid and wasteful war, but I'd have a higher opinion of him, certainly.

LBJ started Vietnam. One of President Kennedy's major accomplishments was the Cuban Missile Crisis- he managed to keep nukes from being planted a few hundred miles off our coast without starting a war, while at the same time keeping US nukes near the Russian border. If that isn't competency from a president I don't know what is.

[Chrobalta]

Bobby should have won in 68.

[Conserative Morality]

LBJ started Vietnam. One of President Kennedy's major accomplishments was the Cuban Missile Crisis- he managed to keep nukes from being planted a few hundred miles off our coast without starting a war, while at the same time keeping US nukes near the Russian border. If that isn't competency from a president I don't know what is.

*sigh* JFK decided that an invasion would be the best way to deal with things, after his blockade, which was an act of war, mind you. Not only that, but the strategic nukes placed in Cuba would have had no real impact, even if they had been left there. Not only that, but JFK did start the Vietnam War, LBJ took the blame.

[Thethunderdome]

LBJ started Vietnam. One of President Kennedy's major accomplishments was the Cuban Missile Crisis- he managed to keep nukes from being planted a few hundred miles off our coast without starting a war, while at the same time keeping US nukes near the Russian border. If that isn't competency from a president I don't know what is.

*sigh* JFK decided that an invasion would be the best way to deal with things, after his blockade, which was an act of war, mind you. Not only that, but the strategic nukes placed in Cuba would have had no real impact, even if they had been left there. Not only that, but JFK did start the Vietnam War, LBJ took the blame.

The missiles wouldn't have an impact should the two sides start nuking each other, but they had a huge impact on the morale of everyone. Kennedy said to accept them would be "to surrender to blackmail" which is entirely true. It was about not backing down and drawing the line for the Soviets. It worked, too. Saying "if it didn't there would have been war" is irrelevant because it did work because JFK was a smart and competent man.

And LBJ 100% started Vietnam war with the Tonkin Resolution. Sure, JFK escalated it, but he certainly didn't start it.

[Fleckenstein]

And LBJ 100% started Vietnam war with the Tonkin Resolution. Sure, JFK escalated it, but he certainly didn't start it.

. . .

Ok.

1. Tonkin resolution passed after JFK died.

3. JFK ---> LBJ, for the record.

2. JFK sent around 15k troops to Vietnam in '63.

4. JFK was planning a coup of the Vietnamese leadership (Diem?) when LBJ decided to change the parade route in Dallas.

[Conserative Morality]

The missiles wouldn't have an impact should the two sides start nuking each other, but they had a huge impact on the morale of everyone. Kennedy said to accept them would be "to surrender to blackmail" which is entirely true. It was about not backing down and drawing the line for the Soviets. It worked, too. Saying "if it didn't there would have been war" is irrelevant because it did work because JFK was a smart and competent man.

And LBJ 100% started Vietnam war with the Tonkin Resolution. Sure, JFK escalated it, but he certainly didn't start it.

Something must start before it can be escalated.

It wasn't surrender to blackmail, many people think that the Russians sending missiles to Cuba was a ploy to get our missiles removed from Turkey. Not only that, but if anything, it wasn't blackmail, it was coercion. And even then:

The EXCOMM then discussed the effect on the strategic balance. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that the missiles would seriously alter the balance, but Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara disagreed. He was convinced that the missiles would not affect the strategic balance at all. An extra forty, he reasoned, would make little difference to the overall strategic balance. The US already had circa 5,000 strategic warheads, whilst the Soviet Union only had 300. He concluded that the Soviets having 340 would not therefore substantially alter the strategic balance. In 1990 he reiterated that "it made no difference...The military balance wasn't changed. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now."

So in the end, it was never a physical threat, it was all over saving face. JFK almost started a Global Nuclear War over a little prestige.

[Surote]

The lower class people would be treated better jfk's out but no one could assassinate bush it should be the other way around.

[Conserative Morality]

4. JFK was planning a coup of the Vietnamese leadership (Diem?) when LBJ decided to change the parade route in Dallas.

Is this where the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork?

[Parthenon]

The lower class people would be treated better jfk's out but no one could assassinate bush it should be the other way around.

I wish I could tell you how I really think about you after that last comment but doing so would easily be considered flaming... That being said, your flag is in direct violation of copyright laws and the UN has threatened legal action over it being featured in NS. I suggest you change it.

[Conserative Morality]

I wish I could tell you how I really think about you after that last comment but doing so would easily be considered flaming... That being said, your flag is in direct violation of copyright laws and the UN has threatened legal action over it being featured in NS. I suggest you change it.

They only threatened legal action against when it was part of the UN. Unless they plan on going after every individual poster in several hundred forums, which is almost too stupid even for the UN.

[The_pantless_hero]

You have been accusing me of accusing JFK of starting a Nuclear War, which is false. But you'd never admit that, would you?

I've only said that if JFK had two terms, we most likely would have had another fuck-up, and this one wouldn't have turned out quite as lucky for JFK.

I am accusing you of saying JFK would have started an all out nuclear war because you are a biased hypocrite.

[Grays Harbor]

And LBJ 100% started Vietnam war with the Tonkin Resolution. Sure, JFK escalated it, but he certainly didn't start it.

How can somebody escalate something that doesn't start until after they are dead?

Also, the US did not start the war, North Vietnam did when they and their Viet Cong proxies invaded South Vietnam

[Conserative Morality]

I am accusing you of saying JFK would have started an all out nuclear war because you are a biased hypocrite.

1. Of course I'm biased. So are you. We're human.

2. I did say that. He might have, but he was assassinated too early to run for a second term, and might not have won the second term. If he had obtained a second term, I have serious doubts as to whether or not I'd be here today.

3. Hypocrite? Learn the meaning of the word before you use it.

[The_pantless_hero]

If he had obtained a second term, I have serious doubts as to whether or not I'd be here today.

Back to my first statement:
Because what is a right-wing opinion without hyperbolic fear mongering.

[Conserative Morality]

How can somebody escalate something that doesn't start until after they are dead?

November 1963 — Kennedy increased the number of troops from the 800 that were there when he became President to 16,300 just before his death.

[Thethunderdome]

Something must start before it can be escalated.

Eeek, poor wording on my part. With JFK the war was kept relativley small, he did build it up some but LBJ turned it into a full-fledged war. That's what I meant by escalate and start. I was incorrect in using those words. I get that Johnson was his vice president and took over after he died.

It wasn't surrender to blackmail, many people think that the Russians sending missiles to Cuba was a ploy to get our missiles removed from Turkey. Not only that, but if anything, it wasn't blackmail, it was coercion. And even then:

The EXCOMM then discussed the effect on the strategic balance. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that the missiles would seriously alter the balance, but Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara disagreed. He was convinced that the missiles would not affect the strategic balance at all. An extra forty, he reasoned, would make little difference to the overall strategic balance. The US already had circa 5,000 strategic warheads, whilst the Soviet Union only had 300. He concluded that the Soviets having 340 would not therefore substantially alter the strategic balance. In 1990 he reiterated that "it made no difference...The military balance wasn't changed. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now."

So in the end, it was never a physical threat, it was all over saving face. JFK almost started a Global Nuclear War over a little prestige.

A little prestige went a long way in the cold war. It showed the US couldn't be blackmailed or coerced or whatever term you want. It was a possibly catastrophic situation that was handled well and ended up a big plus for America in the long run. There really wasn't a better way to handle it. Sure it appears that we could have just rolled over and allowed it, but then who knows what would have happened after, when the USSR learned that we were pushovers.

[Conserative Morality]

Back to my first statement:
Because what is a right-wing opinion without hyperbolic fear mongering.

Erm, no.

Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hye-PER-bə-lee[1], from ancient Greek "ὑπερβολή", meaning excess or exaggeration) is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is rarely meant to be taken literally.

That is not exaggerated, and is meant to be taken literally. It isn't fear mongering, because I'm not trying to evoke fear, unless you have a fear of undead politicians. Not only that, but it isn't right-wing. Opposing a Democrat Politician isn't inherently right-wing.

[Conserative Morality]

Eeek, poor wording on my part. With JFK the war was kept relativley small, he did build it up some but LBJ turned it into a full-fledged war. That's what I meant by escalate and start. I was incorrect in using those words. I get that Johnson was his vice president and took over after he died.

16,300 troops is hardly small.

A little prestige went a long way in the cold war. It showed the US couldn't be blackmailed or coerced or whatever term you want. It was a possibly catastrophic situation that was handled well and ended up a big plus for America in the long run. There really wasn't a better way to handle it. Sure it appears that we could have just rolled over and allowed it, but then who knows what would have happened after, when the USSR learned that we were pushovers.

Pushovers? Immediately entering into diplomatic negotiations over the missiles would have taught them that we were pushovers, instead of acting brashly and committing an act of war? Instead of preparing for an invasion and Nuclear strike? No, I think there were several better ways to handle it.

[The_pantless_hero]

You are exaggerating because you have no evidence he would have started a global nuclear war or that the US would have been turned into a "nuclear wastelend." The very use of that term is hyperbole. And yes, that is fear mongering because this is a hypothetical scenario. You are using fear mongering to garner opposition to the hypothetical scenario. And no, opposing a Democratic politicians doesn't make you right wing, but doing so with hyperbolic fear mongering and a cover name like Conservative Morality does, don't pull that shit on me.

[Fleckenstein]

Is this where the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork?

Depends.

Also, what is the trend with massive historical revisionism? Is it simply because our children are that fucking stupid, or has the culture of lying taken hold so deeply even established history can be discarded? Between conservative rantings on the Great Depression and now apparent ignorance on Vietnam, as a history buff this obliviousness is painful.

[Fleckenstein]

Opposing a Democrat Politician isn't inherently right-wing.

Using incorrect adjectives is.

[Robustian]

Ok. Well, i've listened to the same question everyday at school, so I want to know what you think.

I think the premise to this is fully outside of the realm of "reality".

The Kennedys did little to nothing for us, JFK was especially afflicted with poor judgement, and the others never demonstrated ANY mettle to their character. JFK was not the economic "liberal" you guys think, though. He campaigned on reducing taxings, promoting business, and stimulating a weak economy.