Kruschev's reaction

[everet...@gmail.com]

What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?

Everett F.

[Canuck]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:06:37 PM UTC-7, everet...@gmail.com wrote:
> What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?
>
>
>
> Everett F.

He was shocked. According to the book JFK & THE UNSPEAKABLE, Krushchev and Kennedy had been corresponding with the hope of ending the so-called "cold war".
The test-ban treaty they both signed was a good beginning. - prwhitmey

[mainframetech]

On May 13, 12:06 am, everett.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
> What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?
>
> Everett F.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwKpD3iDICo

Chris

[Bill Clarke]

In article <970ad1ab-9e93-41f8...@googlegroups.com>,
everet...@gmail.com says...

>
>What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?
>
>Everett F.
>

Reports are that the old boy took it rather hard and was genuinely distraught
over the assassination. He also feared that in the transition of power in the
U.S. some American general would get a itchy trigger finger and fire off a
missile at Russia.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/13/2013 12:06 AM, everet...@gmail.com wrote:
> What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?
>
> Everett F.
>

Fear that the military or rightwingers were taking over.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5191...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Right. But that was before Khrushchev knew JFK had been killed by a lefty.

Bill Clarke

[claviger]

On May 13, 5:24 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <51912...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
> >On 5/13/2013 12:06 AM, everett.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?
>
> >> Everett F.
>
> >Fear that the military or rightwingers were taking over.
>
> Right.  But that was before Khrushchev knew JFK had been killed by a lefty.

Yes, a charter member of the local Fidel Castro fan club of New
Orleans.

[Canuck]

If he was a "lefty", why would he kill JFK? So LBJ could finally be President, and didn't have to face the prospect of being replaced because of the Bobby Baker scandal (Nixon predicted at Love Field as he departed Dallas early on the morning of Nov. 22 that JFK would "dump" Johnson)? - prwhitmey

[Bill Clarke]

In article <8da50f7d-7c09-4e40...@googlegroups.com>, Canuck
says...

>
>On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:24:36 PM UTC-7, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <5191...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >On 5/13/2013 12:06 AM, everet...@gmail.com wrote:

>>=20

>> >> What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?

>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >> Everett F.
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >Fear that the military or rightwingers were taking over.

>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> Right. But that was before Khrushchev knew JFK had been killed by a left=
>y.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Bill Clarke
>
>If he was a "lefty", why would he kill JFK? So LBJ could finally be Presid=
>ent, and didn't have to face the prospect of being replaced because of the =
>Bobby Baker scandal (Nixon predicted at Love Field as he departed Dallas ea=

>rly on the morning of Nov. 22 that JFK would "dump" Johnson)? - prwhitmey
>

Mostly I was pricking Marsh here but if you must take it serious here
goes.

Perhaps the lefty wanted a more lefty president than Kennedy. Johnson
would fill that bill. I don't think this is what happened but this
answers your question. Also since Oswald was a Free Cuba man he obviously
couldn't tolerate the Kennedy boy's illegal and immoral actions in Cuba.
Now this one I take serious.

Much is said about JFK dumping Johnson but I don't think anyone really
knows for sure if JFK would have done so. Maybe so, maybe not.

Bill Clarke

[claviger]

On May 14, 6:44 am, Canuck <prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:24:36 PM UTC-7, Bill Clarke wrote:

> > In article <51912...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
> > >On 5/13/2013 12:06 AM, everett.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?
>
> > >> Everett F.
>
> > >Fear that the military or rightwingers were taking over.
>
> > Right.  But that was before Khrushchev knew JFK had been killed by a lefty.
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> If he was a "lefty", why would he kill JFK?  So LBJ could finally be
> President, and didn't have to face the prospect of being replaced
> because of the Bobby Baker scandal (Nixon predicted at Love Field
> as he departed Dallas early on the morning of Nov. 22 that JFK would
> "dump" Johnson)? - prwhitmey

LBJ was a lefty, in fact the most Liberal president since his hero FDR and
until BHO. If the question is "cui bono" and LBJ is the main suspect then
a very Liberal VP bumped off a moderate Democrat with some conservative
ideas. In the 1960s Democrats tolerated diversity and the party was a
mixture of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Today Democrats are a
combination of liberals, Hollywood, and the far left, so good riddance to
the others.

That formula seems to be working for them and from now on it appears the
USA will be a one party government. Maybe the Greens and Libertarians
will close ranks to have some influence, but doubtful. Amnesty will seal
the deal forever, if BHO can convince his Labor supporters to accept this
ultimate knock out punch. Then the USA will be proof the predictions of
Karl Marx have come true, socialism will eventually replace capitalism.

The only threat to this socialist political philosophy that national
mediocrity works best, if free enterprise gains momentum in Russia and
China. Putin was trained as an economist by a forward thinking Russian
mentor and China is pleased with how well laissez-fair is working for
them. Not only is it spreading the wealth better than communism planned
economies ever did, there's an extra bonus they've discovered. Free
enterprise actually creates more wealth to spread. The vitality and energy
of free markets unleashes amazing creativity and innovation in response to
competition.

JFK was a man of vigor who appreciated what a vigorous economy could do
and he was right. Reagan proved it again by adopting JFK's lower taxes
economic philosophy. The current Federal government in power has now
adopted a punitive taxation policy to punish the US business community.
We may be the only country on the planet where the government makes war on
its own economy, and the government is winning.

France may be a close second.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. LBJ represented the conservative wing of the Democratic Party and
JFK's rival for the nomination.

> answers your question. Also since Oswald was a Free Cuba man he obviously
> couldn't tolerate the Kennedy boy's illegal and immoral actions in Cuba.
> Now this one I take serious.
>

Oswald had no way of knowing that JFK was working out an accommodation
with Castro.

> Much is said about JFK dumping Johnson but I don't think anyone really
> knows for sure if JFK would have done so. Maybe so, maybe not.
>

Yes, we know that he could not have dumped LBJ. He needed those Texas
votes. That's why he risked his life campaigning in Texas.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Canuck]

You mean "Kennedy boys" (no apostrophe; it's the plural of "boy"). As for
"dumping" Johnson, the Bobby Baker scandal had been headline news
throughout November, and, Johnson was pictured with his arm around Baker
in LIFE, and as I recall, it was the cover story in LIFE on Nov. 22 or
possibly Nov. 15 (magazines always came out a week before the date given).
Baker even named a son Lynden. Baker eventually went to jail, but
unfortunately neither Johnson nor Nixon did.

What makes you think Oswald had any more knowledge about attempts to kill
Castro by the Kennedy administration than anyone else? And was Oswald's
Fair Play For Cuba chapter genuine, given that he had only one member -
himself. Apparently, flyers about Corliss Lamont (I might not have the
name correct) came from the CIA, which was revealed in Jim DiEugenio's
book. - prwhitmey

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5192a7c1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

That is not true and you know it. He damn sure wasn't working out an
accommodation with Castro. He "attempted" which is very different than "working
out". Castro, not forgetting all that the Kennedy boys had done to overthrow
and/or kill him, told Camelot to stuff it.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <b7632b9c-3ae7-45cb...@googlegroups.com>, Canuck
says...

>
>On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:22:09 PM UTC-7, Bill Clarke wrote:

>> In article <8da50f7d-7c09-4e40...@googlegroups.com>, Canuc=
>k
>>=20
>> says...
>>=20
>> >
>>=20

>> >On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:24:36 PM UTC-7, Bill Clarke wrote:

>>=20

>> >> In article <5191...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>=20

>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> >
>>=20
>> >>=3D20

>>=20
>> >> >On 5/13/2013 12:06 AM, everet...@gmail.com wrote:
>>=20

>> >>=3D20

>>=20
>> >> >> What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?
>>=20

>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> >>
>>=20
>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> >> Everett F.
>>=20
>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> >>
>>=20
>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> >
>>=20
>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> >
>>=20
>> >>=3D20

>>=20
>> >> >Fear that the military or rightwingers were taking over.
>>=20

>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> >
>>=20
>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> >
>>=20
>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> Right. But that was before Khrushchev knew JFK had been killed by a l=
>eft=3D
>>=20
>> >y.
>>=20
>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >>=3D20
>>=20
>> >> Bill Clarke
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >If he was a "lefty", why would he kill JFK? So LBJ could finally be Pre=
>sid=3D
>>=20
>> >ent, and didn't have to face the prospect of being replaced because of t=
>he =3D
>>=20
>> >Bobby Baker scandal (Nixon predicted at Love Field as he departed Dallas=
> ea=3D
>>=20
>> >rly on the morning of Nov. 22 that JFK would "dump" Johnson)? - prwhitme=
>y
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Mostly I was pricking Marsh here but if you must take it serious here=20
>>=20
>> goes.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Perhaps the lefty wanted a more lefty president than Kennedy. Johnson=20
>>=20
>> would fill that bill. I don't think this is what happened but this=20
>>=20
>> answers your question. Also since Oswald was a Free Cuba man he obviousl=
>y=20
>>=20
>> couldn't tolerate the Kennedy boy's illegal and immoral actions in Cuba. =
>=20
>>=20

>> Now this one I take serious.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Much is said about JFK dumping Johnson but I don't think anyone really=20
>>=20

>> knows for sure if JFK would have done so. Maybe so, maybe not.

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Bill Clarke
>

>You mean "Kennedy boys" (no apostrophe; it's the plural of "boy"). As for
>"dumping" Johnson, the Bobby Baker scandal had been headline news
>throughout November, and, Johnson was pictured with his arm around Baker
>in LIFE, and as I recall, it was the cover story in LIFE on Nov. 22 or
>possibly Nov. 15 (magazines always came out a week before the date given).
>Baker even named a son Lynden. Baker eventually went to jail, but
>unfortunately neither Johnson nor Nixon did.

I notice the Bobby Baker scandal didn't keep Johnson from becoming president or
result in his impeachment after he became president. That with Bobby still the
Attorney General.

>What makes you think Oswald had any more knowledge about attempts to kill
>Castro by the Kennedy administration than anyone else? And was Oswald's
>Fair Play For Cuba chapter genuine, given that he had only one member -
>himself. Apparently, flyers about Corliss Lamont (I might not have the
>name correct) came from the CIA, which was revealed in Jim DiEugenio's
>book. - prwhitmey
>

No doubt Oswald knew about the Bay of Pigs. That was illegal and immoral also.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Jeez, I wonder why not. Can you name any sitting President who served
his term while serving his sentence in jail? Some kooks claim this was
LBJ's motive, to avoid prison.

> What makes you think Oswald had any more knowledge about attempts to kill
> Castro by the Kennedy administration than anyone else? And was Oswald's

Gee, that's a tough one. Maybe he knew how to read a newspaper. Maybe he
was reading newspapers that most people never read. Maybe he subscribed
to the Grassy Knoll Gazette? (that's known in the trade as an anachronism)

> Fair Play For Cuba chapter genuine, given that he had only one member -
> himself. Apparently, flyers about Corliss Lamont (I might not have the

Or was it a CIA front set up by David Atlee Phillips?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/14/2013 8:02 PM, claviger wrote:
> On May 14, 6:44 am, Canuck <prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, May 13, 2013 3:24:36 PM UTC-7, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <51912...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>>> On 5/13/2013 12:06 AM, everett.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> What was Kruschev's reaction--if any--to JFK's assassination?
>>
>>>>> Everett F.
>>
>>>> Fear that the military or rightwingers were taking over.
>>
>>> Right. But that was before Khrushchev knew JFK had been killed by a lefty.
>>
>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> If he was a "lefty", why would he kill JFK? So LBJ could finally be
>> President, and didn't have to face the prospect of being replaced
>> because of the Bobby Baker scandal (Nixon predicted at Love Field
>> as he departed Dallas early on the morning of Nov. 22 that JFK would
>> "dump" Johnson)? - prwhitmey
>
> LBJ was a lefty, in fact the most Liberal president since his hero FDR and
> until BHO. If the question is "cui bono" and LBJ is the main suspect then
> a very Liberal VP bumped off a moderate Democrat with some conservative
> ideas. In the 1960s Democrats tolerated diversity and the party was a
> mixture of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Today Democrats are a
> combination of liberals, Hollywood, and the far left, so good riddance to
> the others.
>

I don't want to raise your hopes too much, but there have been some
assassinations where the assassin was in the same party and maybe
slightly more liberal or slightly more conservative than the victim.
Some have even been friends who had a personal feud like sleeping with
the other guy's wife or seeking revenge for being demoted or turned in
for a crime. See for example the Rockwell assassination. Or maybe even
Huey Long.

> That formula seems to be working for them and from now on it appears the
> USA will be a one party government. Maybe the Greens and Libertarians
> will close ranks to have some influence, but doubtful. Amnesty will seal
> the deal forever, if BHO can convince his Labor supporters to accept this
> ultimate knock out punch. Then the USA will be proof the predictions of
> Karl Marx have come true, socialism will eventually replace capitalism.
>
> The only threat to this socialist political philosophy that national
> mediocrity works best, if free enterprise gains momentum in Russia and
> China. Putin was trained as an economist by a forward thinking Russian
> mentor and China is pleased with how well laissez-fair is working for
> them. Not only is it spreading the wealth better than communism planned
> economies ever did, there's an extra bonus they've discovered. Free

You can't call any system Laissez-Fair when it depends on slavery.
The Southern economy was not Laissez-Fair.

> enterprise actually creates more wealth to spread. The vitality and energy
> of free markets unleashes amazing creativity and innovation in response to
> competition.
>

There is no such thing as free markets in a totalitarian system.

> JFK was a man of vigor who appreciated what a vigorous economy could do
> and he was right. Reagan proved it again by adopting JFK's lower taxes
> economic philosophy. The current Federal government in power has now

No, by raising taxes.

> adopted a punitive taxation policy to punish the US business community.

Historically the lowest tax rates.

[claviger]

Bill,

> No doubt Oswald knew about the Bay of Pigs.  That was illegal and immoral also.
>
> Bill Clarke

Why was it illegal and immoral? By communist rules nothing is illegal
and they don't understand the concept of morality to begin with. What
they do understand is raw power. The communist reaction to the BOP is
what a wimpy effort it was and JFK was too inexperienced to close the
deal.

[Anthony Marsh]

It is damn true that Oswald had no way of knowing it.
JFK was working out an accommodation.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't think you understand the concept that we should not be immoral
and act illegally just because our enemies do.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <91a2418d-a26a-417c...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...
>
>Bill,
>
>> No doubt Oswald knew about the Bay of Pigs. =A0That was illegal and immor=

>al also.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>Why was it illegal and immoral? By communist rules nothing is illegal
>and they don't understand the concept of morality to begin with. What
>they do understand is raw power. The communist reaction to the BOP is
>what a wimpy effort it was and JFK was too inexperienced to close the
>deal.

Oh I agree with you 100% but just because the commies do it don't mean we
should do it. I,m not saying I wouldn't have taken out Hitler but
assassination is, I think, immoral.

Bill Clarke

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > LBJ was a lefty, in fact the most Liberal president since his hero FDR and
> > until BHO.  If the question is "cui bono" and LBJ is the main suspect then
> > a very Liberal VP bumped off a moderate Democrat with some conservative
> > ideas.  In the 1960s Democrats tolerated diversity and the party was a
> > mixture of liberals, moderates, and conservatives.  Today Democrats are a
> > combination of liberals, Hollywood, and the far left, so good riddance to
> > the others.
>
> I don't want to raise your hopes too much, but there have been some
> assassinations where the assassin was in the same party and maybe
> slightly more liberal or slightly more conservative than the victim.
> Some have even been friends who had a personal feud like sleeping with
> the other guy's wife or seeking revenge for being demoted or turned in
> for a crime. See for example the Rockwell assassination. Or maybe even
> Huey Long.

The opinion by several Mexican nationals I know believe Luis Donaldo
Colosio was assassinated by his own party. They finally realized he
was serious about cleaning up Mexican politics. Donaldo Colosio and
his beautiful wife Diana would have been the Jack and Jackie Kennedy
of Mexico. The parallels between these two glamorous couples is very
interesting.

> > That formula seems to be working for them and from now on it appears the
> > USA will be a one party government.  Maybe the Greens and Libertarians
> > will close ranks to have some influence, but doubtful. Amnesty will seal
> > the deal forever, if BHO can convince his Labor supporters to accept this
> > ultimate knock out punch.  Then the USA will be proof the predictions of
> > Karl Marx have come true, socialism will eventually replace capitalism.
>
> > The only threat to this socialist political philosophy that national
> > mediocrity works best, if free enterprise gains momentum in Russia and
> > China.  Putin was trained as an economist by a forward thinking Russian
> > mentor and China is pleased with how well laissez-fair is working for
> > them. Not only is it spreading the wealth better than communism planned
> > economies ever did, there's an extra bonus they've discovered.  Free
>
> You can't call any system Laissez-Fair when it depends on slavery.

True enough. Slavery doesn't work but self interest and self
improvement naturally works when given the freedom to accumulate
wealth, even at the lowest levels. Wealth defined as any surplus
beyond subsistence levels. This is normally referred to as "savings".

> The Southern economy was not Laissez-Fair.

Not at all. It was a socialist system on Southern plantations. Over
the long run it didn't work and would have eventually collapsed for
economic reasons even without The Civil War. This is the reason
slavery was phased out in Brazil without a devastating civil conflict
like the US. One fascinating story by a widow who was forced to run a
plantation when her husband unexpectedly passed away. She was good at
math and soon realized this economic model was no longer viable, and
also realized the plantation would work much better if she freed the
slaves then hired them back as laborers. A newspaper editor in the
North pointed out that northern manufacturers had a much cheaper
situation with poor Irish laborers than plantation owners who were
stuck with all kinds of welfare maintenance costs.

> > enterprise actually creates more wealth to spread. The vitality and energy
> > of free markets unleashes amazing creativity and innovation in response to
> > competition.
>
> There is no such thing as free markets in a totalitarian system.

That used to be the case. If you are referring to China then you
haven't been watching the Charlie Rose Show. Look for the interview
with Lee Kuan Yew. The Chinese model is changing and Deng Xiaoping is
a brilliant leader who is very practical. Yugoslavia had a fairly
good economy under Marshall Tito and so did Spain under Franco. Then
there were the booming prewar economies under two socialist pioneers,
Hitler and Mussolini. By contrast, the Russian economy under Lenin
and Stalin was a disaster.

> > JFK was a man of vigor who appreciated what a vigorous economy could do
> > and he was right.  Reagan proved it again by adopting JFK's lower taxes
> > economic philosophy.  The current Federal government in power has now
>
> No, by raising taxes.

Yes indeed. They both raised tax revenues by cutting tax rates.

> > adopted a punitive taxation policy to punish the US business community.
>
> Historically the lowest tax rates.

That is something to be proud of. Lower tax rates are associated with
healthy economies. Look at the current advertising campaign by New
York State. Compare it to the disaster going on in California created
by Governor Jerry Brown. Movie stars are putting their Hollywood
mansions up for sale and bailing out as fast as they can. The irony
is they all campaigned for Brown and gave him money. Now they can't
get out of town fast enough. A petulant Brown now wants to punish
them with a "bounty" for moving out of state. Be careful what you
wish for LaLa Landers!

[claviger]

On May 15, 11:12 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <91a2418d-a26a-417c-bc9e-16adfb8b9...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

OK, I thought you meant the Soviets were complaining it was "illegal and
immoral". It appears the Castro rebellion was home grown and Jack Ruby
was running guns to these rebels. Many Cubans lost land, property, and
other valuables to Castro's bunch of cutthroats. It seems both reasonable
and fair disenfranchised Cubans would want to regain their property rights
by the same process of civil war against this brash and mouthy new
dictator, whom they consider a thief and a murderer. If the US government
decides it's in their own self interest to support this effort, why would
that be illegal and immoral?

Did you know the Union Army made an attempt to assassinate Jefferson
Davis? If not, look up "the Dahlgren Affair" or the "Kilpatrick- Dahlgren
Raid". One author claims the assassination of Lincoln was sanctioned by
Davis in response to this failed attempt on himself. No proof ever
surfaced Booth was under direct orders from Richmond. The question then
is it OK to "fight fire with fire"? Would Castro be justified under the
rules of war to retaliate against President Kennedy for CIA Operation
Mongoose?

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51944a76$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Yes, that part is true.

>JFK was working out an accommodation.

This part isn't true. JFK attempted an accommodation. Castro would, with
good reason, have no part of it. So much for working out an
accommodation.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, there are laws about the US invading other countries. That's why
JFK changed the Bay of Pigs invasion plans because Nixon's plan was too
noisy and made it clear that it was a US invasion not a home grown
rebellion. Did you know that in the American Revolution different
countries took different sides to support the rebels or England?

> Did you know the Union Army made an attempt to assassinate Jefferson
> Davis? If not, look up "the Dahlgren Affair" or the "Kilpatrick- Dahlgren
> Raid". One author claims the assassination of Lincoln was sanctioned by

Did you know that the Confederacy assassinated President Lincoln? Do you
remember what started The First World War? JFK did.

> Davis in response to this failed attempt on himself. No proof ever
> surfaced Booth was under direct orders from Richmond. The question then
> is it OK to "fight fire with fire"? Would Castro be justified under the
> rules of war to retaliate against President Kennedy for CIA Operation
> Mongoose?
>

So, is it OK if Japan nukes the US?

>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/16/2013 4:11 PM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>>> LBJ was a lefty, in fact the most Liberal president since his hero FDR and
>>> until BHO. If the question is "cui bono" and LBJ is the main suspect then
>>> a very Liberal VP bumped off a moderate Democrat with some conservative
>>> ideas. In the 1960s Democrats tolerated diversity and the party was a
>>> mixture of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Today Democrats are a
>>> combination of liberals, Hollywood, and the far left, so good riddance to
>>> the others.
>>
>> I don't want to raise your hopes too much, but there have been some
>> assassinations where the assassin was in the same party and maybe
>> slightly more liberal or slightly more conservative than the victim.
>> Some have even been friends who had a personal feud like sleeping with
>> the other guy's wife or seeking revenge for being demoted or turned in
>> for a crime. See for example the Rockwell assassination. Or maybe even
>> Huey Long.
>
> The opinion by several Mexican nationals I know believe Luis Donaldo
> Colosio was assassinated by his own party. They finally realized he
> was serious about cleaning up Mexican politics. Donaldo Colosio and
> his beautiful wife Diana would have been the Jack and Jackie Kennedy
> of Mexico. The parallels between these two glamorous couples is very
> interesting.
>

Good example. If I remember correctly the lone nut assassin's gun jammed
and the insurance shooter had to take the killing shot.
Likewise Saddam Hussein failed on his first CIA assigned assassination
when his gun jammed.

>>> That formula seems to be working for them and from now on it appears the
>>> USA will be a one party government. Maybe the Greens and Libertarians
>>> will close ranks to have some influence, but doubtful. Amnesty will seal
>>> the deal forever, if BHO can convince his Labor supporters to accept this
>>> ultimate knock out punch. Then the USA will be proof the predictions of
>>> Karl Marx have come true, socialism will eventually replace capitalism.
>>
>>> The only threat to this socialist political philosophy that national
>>> mediocrity works best, if free enterprise gains momentum in Russia and
>>> China. Putin was trained as an economist by a forward thinking Russian
>>> mentor and China is pleased with how well laissez-fair is working for
>>> them. Not only is it spreading the wealth better than communism planned
>>> economies ever did, there's an extra bonus they've discovered. Free
>>
>> You can't call any system Laissez-Fair when it depends on slavery.
>
> True enough. Slavery doesn't work but self interest and self
> improvement naturally works when given the freedom to accumulate
> wealth, even at the lowest levels. Wealth defined as any surplus
> beyond subsistence levels. This is normally referred to as "savings".
>

Also as "investments."

>> The Southern economy was not Laissez-Fair.
>
> Not at all. It was a socialist system on Southern plantations. Over
> the long run it didn't work and would have eventually collapsed for
> economic reasons even without The Civil War. This is the reason

Eventually? What, in 3010? Watch the movie CSA: Confederate States of
America.

> slavery was phased out in Brazil without a devastating civil conflict
> like the US. One fascinating story by a widow who was forced to run a
> plantation when her husband unexpectedly passed away. She was good at
> math and soon realized this economic model was no longer viable, and
> also realized the plantation would work much better if she freed the
> slaves then hired them back as laborers. A newspaper editor in the
> North pointed out that northern manufacturers had a much cheaper
> situation with poor Irish laborers than plantation owners who were
> stuck with all kinds of welfare maintenance costs.
>

Not believable. It's called rationalizing.

>>> enterprise actually creates more wealth to spread. The vitality and energy
>>> of free markets unleashes amazing creativity and innovation in response to
>>> competition.
>>
>> There is no such thing as free markets in a totalitarian system.
>
> That used to be the case. If you are referring to China then you
> haven't been watching the Charlie Rose Show. Look for the interview
> with Lee Kuan Yew. The Chinese model is changing and Deng Xiaoping is
> a brilliant leader who is very practical. Yugoslavia had a fairly
> good economy under Marshall Tito and so did Spain under Franco. Then

Because they were propped up by the US. Cuba used to have a fairly good
economy when it was a haven for the US based Mafia and propped up by the
US government.

> there were the booming prewar economies under two socialist pioneers,
> Hitler and Mussolini. By contrast, the Russian economy under Lenin
> and Stalin was a disaster.
>

Fascist, not Socialist.

>>> JFK was a man of vigor who appreciated what a vigorous economy could do
>>> and he was right. Reagan proved it again by adopting JFK's lower taxes
>>> economic philosophy. The current Federal government in power has now
>>
>> No, by raising taxes.
>
> Yes indeed. They both raised tax revenues by cutting tax rates.
>

Yes, Reagan raised tax revenues by raising tax rates. That's usually how
it works.
It also helps when trillionaires actually pay their taxes.

>>> adopted a punitive taxation policy to punish the US business community.
>>
>> Historically the lowest tax rates.
>
> That is something to be proud of. Lower tax rates are associated with
> healthy economies. Look at the current advertising campaign by New

Wrong.

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't say JFK was successful. They killed him before he could be
successful.

> Bill Clarke
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5195961c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Ah yes, if only Jack had lived. Had he lived, Marsh, he probably would
have finally been exposed for the whore monger he was amongst other
scandals.

Assassination or not any "working out" with Castro required Castro.
Castro, no doubt remembering all that the Kennedy boys had done to him,
told Kennedy to stick it where the sun don't shine. There was no "working
out".

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

And who was going to expose him? You? The press wouldn't. So where's
your best seller?

> Assassination or not any "working out" with Castro required Castro.
> Castro, no doubt remembering all that the Kennedy boys had done to him,
> told Kennedy to stick it where the sun don't shine. There was no "working
> out".
>

No, we have ways of turning enemies into allies.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5196ffb1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

See if you can understand this Marsh. The longer you expose yourself to
enemy fire the greater the probability that you are going to be hit. You
really think he would have made 5 more years without being exposed?

>> Assassination or not any "working out" with Castro required Castro.
>> Castro, no doubt remembering all that the Kennedy boys had done to him,
>> told Kennedy to stick it where the sun don't shine. There was no "working
>> out".
>>
>
>No, we have ways of turning enemies into allies.

Some. Probably not Castro who was being well cared for by the Soviets at
the time. Kennedy needed him, Castro didn't need JFK.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Again, try dealing with reality rather than imagining things.
He was already accused of everything possible. He controlled the press.
LBJ revealed his Addison's Disease during the convention. Did you read
about that then? His father paid the doctors to lie and say that he did
not have Addison's Disease. When you are a millionaire you can do
anything you want. Someone wrote a book about his first marriage. Did
you read that book? What happened to the editor who said he was going to
reveal all those things which you think would have brought down JFK?
They put him in a straight jacket and locked him in an insane asylum.

>
>>> Assassination or not any "working out" with Castro required Castro.
>>> Castro, no doubt remembering all that the Kennedy boys had done to him,
>>> told Kennedy to stick it where the sun don't shine. There was no "working
>>> out".
>>>
>>
>> No, we have ways of turning enemies into allies.
>
> Some. Probably not Castro who was being well cared for by the Soviets at
> the time. Kennedy needed him, Castro didn't need JFK.
>

He sorta got a little annoyed when we tried to kill him 600 times. Some
people are fussy like that.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[claviger]

What laws? Who enforces these laws?

> Did you know that in the American Revolution different
> countries took different sides to support the rebels or England?

Yes. What's your point?

> > Did you know the Union Army made an attempt to assassinate Jefferson
> > Davis?  If not, look up "the Dahlgren Affair" or the "Kilpatrick- Dahlgren
> > Raid".  One author claims the assassination of Lincoln was sanctioned by
>
> Did you know that the Confederacy assassinated President Lincoln?

No I didn't know that and neither do you. All we know is a ragtag
group of
conspirators put together by a stage actor attempted to assassinate
several
politicians in Washington. They were all basically incompetent
amateur
assassins like Lee Harvey Oswald.

> Do you remember what started The First World War? JFK did.

JFK started WWI?

> > Davis in response to this failed attempt on himself.  No proof ever
> > surfaced Booth was under direct orders from Richmond.  The question then
> > is it OK to "fight fire with fire"?  Would Castro be justified under the
> > rules of war to retaliate against President Kennedy for CIA Operation
> > Mongoose?
>
> So, is it OK if Japan nukes the US?

What do you mean "is it OK"? If Japan had the weapons and delivery
systems to retaliate they would not need permission from anyone.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > The opinion by several Mexican nationals I know believe Luis Donaldo
> > Colosio was assassinated by his own party.  They finally realized he
> > was serious about cleaning up Mexican politics.  Donaldo Colosio and
> > his beautiful wife Diana would have been the Jack and Jackie Kennedy
> > of Mexico. The parallels between these two glamorous couples is very
> > interesting.
> Good example. If I remember correctly the lone nut assassin's gun jammed
> and the insurance shooter had to take the killing shot.
> Likewise Saddam Hussein failed on his first CIA assigned assassination
> when his gun jammed.

10 key aspects to remember the assassination of Luis Donaldo ...
mexicoinstitute.wordpress.com/.../10-key-aspects-to-remember-the-
assass...

Mar 23, 2012 – Sinembargo, 3/23/2012. On this day, 18 years ago, there
occurred in Mexico a national tragedy: the assassination of Luis Donaldo
Colosio ...

> >> You can't call any system Laissez-Fair when it depends on slavery.
> > True enough.  Slavery doesn't work but self interest and self
> > improvement naturally works when given the freedom to accumulate
> > wealth, even at the lowest levels.  Wealth defined as any surplus
> > beyond subsistence levels.  This is normally referred to as "savings".
> Also as "investments."

Not sure what your point is, but savings are not equal to investments,
unless you mean investments in the family itself. Enough savings make
outside investments possible, which is why the stock market and free
enterprise are not possible without wealth. Ironically the only
economically successful socialist models were designed to protect the
established core wealth of Italy and Germany. Those economies prospered
for a while. The Soviet model destroyed the core wealth of Russia and was
an unmitigated disaster.

> >> The Southern economy was not Laissez-Fair.
> > Not at all.  It was a socialist system on Southern plantations.  Over
> > the long run it didn't work and would have eventually collapsed for
> > economic reasons even without The Civil War.  This is the reason
> Eventually? What, in 3010? Watch the movie CSA: Confederate States
> of America.

Historians have estimated the Southern slaveocracy economy would have
lasted maybe two more decades at most before collapsing. In fact the
slave system was in decline until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin,
which extended that system for a few decades longer. Egypt, Israel,
Greece, Rome, et al, used various slave economies for years but those
eventually faded away too. So did the Feudal system of Europe. To their
credit Brazil eliminated their slave system without bloodshed.

> > slavery was phased out in Brazil without a devastating civil conflict
> > like the US.  One fascinating story by a widow who was forced to run a
> > plantation when her husband unexpectedly passed away.  She was good
> > at math and soon realized this economic model was no longer viable, and
> > also realized the plantation would work much better if she freed the
> > slaves then hired them back as laborers.  A newspaper editor in the
> > North pointed out that northern manufacturers had a much cheaper
> > situation with poor Irish laborers than plantation owners who were
> > stuck with all kinds of welfare maintenance costs.
> Not believable. It's called rationalizing.

I get the feeling you are not well read in on this subject. Did you flunk
both history and poly-sci the same semester?

> >>> enterprise actually creates more wealth to spread. The vitality and energy
> >>> of free markets unleashes amazing creativity and innovation in response
> >>> to competition.
> >> There is no such thing as free markets in a totalitarian system.
> > That used to be the case.  If you are referring to China then you
> > haven't been watching the Charlie Rose Show.  Look for the interview
> > with Lee Kuan Yew.  The Chinese model is changing and Deng Xiaoping is
> > a brilliant leader who is very practical.  Yugoslavia had a fairly
> > good economy under Marshall Tito and so did Spain under Franco.  Then
> Because they were propped up by the US. Cuba used to have a fairly good
> economy when it was a haven for the US based Mafia and propped up by the
> US government.

The US propped up Yugoslavia and Spain? Cite please. Yes Cuba did have a
fairly good economy based on Mafia investments. So did Las Vegas.

> > there were the booming prewar economies under two socialist pioneers,
> > Hitler and Mussolini.  By contrast, the Russian economy under Lenin
> > and Stalin was a disaster.
> Fascist, not Socialist.

Fascists are Socialists. Italy and Germany were the only successful
economic models of socialism. The Russian model was an economic disaster.
All three models allowed criminal behavior by the parties and leaders in
power because "the end justifies the means", the underlying concept of all
socialist theories.

> >>> JFK was a man of vigor who appreciated what a vigorous economy could do
> >>> and he was right.  Reagan proved it again by adopting JFK's lower taxes
> >>> economic philosophy.  The current Federal government in power has now
> >> No, by raising taxes.
> > Yes indeed.  They both raised tax revenues by cutting tax rates.
> Yes, Reagan raised tax revenues by raising tax rates. That's usually how
> it works.

So you flunked economics too that same semester.

> It also helps when trillionaires actually pay their taxes.

Yes it does but socialists usually make exceptions for them. As Orwell
said in Animal Farm: with socialism "All animals are equal, but some
animals are more equal than others."

> >>> adopted a punitive taxation policy to punish the US business community.
> >> Historically the lowest tax rates.
> > That is something to be proud of.  Lower tax rates are associated with
> > healthy economies.  Look at the current advertising campaign by New
> Wrong.

Higher taxes means lower discretionary income for consumers, less capital
expenditures for businesses, and fewer bonuses for employees. Does that
sound like a healthy economy to you?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/19/2013 5:47 PM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>>> The opinion by several Mexican nationals I know believe Luis Donaldo
>>> Colosio was assassinated by his own party. They finally realized he
>>> was serious about cleaning up Mexican politics. Donaldo Colosio and
>>> his beautiful wife Diana would have been the Jack and Jackie Kennedy
>>> of Mexico. The parallels between these two glamorous couples is very
>>> interesting.
>> Good example. If I remember correctly the lone nut assassin's gun jammed
>> and the insurance shooter had to take the killing shot.
>> Likewise Saddam Hussein failed on his first CIA assigned assassination
>> when his gun jammed.
>
> 10 key aspects to remember the assassination of Luis Donaldo ...
> mexicoinstitute.wordpress.com/.../10-key-aspects-to-remember-the-
> assass...
>

> Mar 23, 2012 � Sinembargo, 3/23/2012. On this day, 18 years ago, there

> occurred in Mexico a national tragedy: the assassination of Luis Donaldo
> Colosio ...
>
>>>> You can't call any system Laissez-Fair when it depends on slavery.
>>> True enough. Slavery doesn't work but self interest and self
>>> improvement naturally works when given the freedom to accumulate
>>> wealth, even at the lowest levels. Wealth defined as any surplus
>>> beyond subsistence levels. This is normally referred to as "savings".
>> Also as "investments."
>
> Not sure what your point is, but savings are not equal to investments,

English here please. I can't translate Texas.
I did not say, "also known as investments." I said in addition to
savings there are "also investments" A+B, not A=B.

> unless you mean investments in the family itself. Enough savings make

Investments in equipment.

> outside investments possible, which is why the stock market and free
> enterprise are not possible without wealth. Ironically the only
> economically successful socialist models were designed to protect the
> established core wealth of Italy and Germany. Those economies prospered
> for a while. The Soviet model destroyed the core wealth of Russia and was
> an unmitigated disaster.
>

That was the goal, to make everyone poor.

>>>> The Southern economy was not Laissez-Fair.
>>> Not at all. It was a socialist system on Southern plantations. Over
>>> the long run it didn't work and would have eventually collapsed for
>>> economic reasons even without The Civil War. This is the reason
>> Eventually? What, in 3010? Watch the movie CSA: Confederate States
>> of America.
>
> Historians have estimated the Southern slaveocracy economy would have
> lasted maybe two more decades at most before collapsing. In fact the
> slave system was in decline until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin,
> which extended that system for a few decades longer. Egypt, Israel,

Partial true, but slavery would still survive even without having to
rely on cotton.

> Greece, Rome, et al, used various slave economies for years but those

And you don't think overreaching and losing wars had anything to do with
that?

> eventually faded away too. So did the Feudal system of Europe. To their
> credit Brazil eliminated their slave system without bloodshed.
>
>>> slavery was phased out in Brazil without a devastating civil conflict
>>> like the US. One fascinating story by a widow who was forced to run a
>>> plantation when her husband unexpectedly passed away. She was good
>>> at math and soon realized this economic model was no longer viable, and
>>> also realized the plantation would work much better if she freed the
>>> slaves then hired them back as laborers. A newspaper editor in the
>>> North pointed out that northern manufacturers had a much cheaper
>>> situation with poor Irish laborers than plantation owners who were
>>> stuck with all kinds of welfare maintenance costs.
>> Not believable. It's called rationalizing.
>
> I get the feeling you are not well read in on this subject. Did you flunk
> both history and poly-sci the same semester?
>

Typical rightwing attack. At least I went to college.

>>>>> enterprise actually creates more wealth to spread. The vitality and energy
>>>>> of free markets unleashes amazing creativity and innovation in response
>>>>> to competition.
>>>> There is no such thing as free markets in a totalitarian system.
>>> That used to be the case. If you are referring to China then you
>>> haven't been watching the Charlie Rose Show. Look for the interview
>>> with Lee Kuan Yew. The Chinese model is changing and Deng Xiaoping is
>>> a brilliant leader who is very practical. Yugoslavia had a fairly
>>> good economy under Marshall Tito and so did Spain under Franco. Then
>> Because they were propped up by the US. Cuba used to have a fairly good
>> economy when it was a haven for the US based Mafia and propped up by the
>> US government.
>
> The US propped up Yugoslavia and Spain? Cite please. Yes Cuba did have a
> fairly good economy based on Mafia investments. So did Las Vegas.
>
>>> there were the booming prewar economies under two socialist pioneers,
>>> Hitler and Mussolini. By contrast, the Russian economy under Lenin
>>> and Stalin was a disaster.
>> Fascist, not Socialist.
>
> Fascists are Socialists. Italy and Germany were the only successful
> economic models of socialism. The Russian model was an economic disaster.

You misuse the terms.

> All three models allowed criminal behavior by the parties and leaders in
> power because "the end justifies the means", the underlying concept of all
> socialist theories.
>

Oh, please tell everyone that monarchies didn't do the same thing.

>>>>> JFK was a man of vigor who appreciated what a vigorous economy could do
>>>>> and he was right. Reagan proved it again by adopting JFK's lower taxes
>>>>> economic philosophy. The current Federal government in power has now
>>>> No, by raising taxes.
>>> Yes indeed. They both raised tax revenues by cutting tax rates.
>> Yes, Reagan raised tax revenues by raising tax rates. That's usually how
>> it works.
>
> So you flunked economics too that same semester.
>
>> It also helps when trillionaires actually pay their taxes.
>
> Yes it does but socialists usually make exceptions for them. As Orwell
> said in Animal Farm: with socialism "All animals are equal, but some
> animals are more equal than others."
>

It is not Obama making the exceptions for the trillionaires. It is the
Fascist Tea Party, bankrolled by the John Birch Society.

>>>>> adopted a punitive taxation policy to punish the US business community.
>>>> Historically the lowest tax rates.
>>> That is something to be proud of. Lower tax rates are associated with
>>> healthy economies. Look at the current advertising campaign by New
>> Wrong.
>
> Higher taxes means lower discretionary income for consumers, less capital
> expenditures for businesses, and fewer bonuses for employees. Does that
> sound like a healthy economy to you?
>

Your theory is looney tunes and what caused the slump and massive deficits.

>

[claviger]

Anthony,

> I get the feeling you are not well read in on this subject.  Did you flunk
> both history and poly-sci the same semester?

By the way, that should read poli-sci, not poly-sci. You may have
done well in several science courses but flunked poll-sci, which is
rather obvious.

[Anthony Marsh]

I said WHAT, not WHO. It was a political assassination which started
WWI. So JFK assigned the book The Guns of August as required reading.

>
>>> Davis in response to this failed attempt on himself. No proof ever
>>> surfaced Booth was under direct orders from Richmond. The question then
>>> is it OK to "fight fire with fire"? Would Castro be justified under the
>>> rules of war to retaliate against President Kennedy for CIA Operation
>>> Mongoose?
>>
>> So, is it OK if Japan nukes the US?
>
> What do you mean "is it OK"? If Japan had the weapons and delivery
> systems to retaliate they would not need permission from anyone.
>

So it's ok with you if Japan nukes the US.
How about al Qaeda?
JFK refuse to bomb Cuba because he said he didn't want to have another
Pearl Harbor.

>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ae303c11-cdf7-4b6b...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...
>
>Anthony,
>
>> I get the feeling you are not well read in on this subject. =A0Did you flunk

>> both history and poly-sci the same semester?
>
>By the way, that should read poli-sci, not poly-sci. You may have
>done well in several science courses but flunked poll-sci, which is
>rather obvious.
>

No, I don't think Marsh took much science. Particularly physics. He was
a liberal arts major. Music I believe was his interest.

Bill Clarke

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > Not sure what your point is, but savings are not equal to investments,
>
> English here please. I can't translate Texas.
> I did not say, "also known as investments." I said in addition to
> savings there are "also investments" A+B, not A=B.

OK, but without a savings surplus there is nothing to invest.

> > unless you mean investments in the family itself.  Enough savings make
>
> Investments in equipment.

For a family?

> > outside investments possible, which is why the stock market and free
> > enterprise are not possible without wealth.  Ironically the only
> > economically successful socialist models were designed to protect the
> > established core wealth of Italy and Germany.  Those economies prospered
> > for a while.  The Soviet model destroyed the core wealth of Russia and was
> > an unmitigated disaster.
>
> That was the goal, to make everyone poor.

It worked. The Russian version of socialism was very efficient at
making everyone poor. Otherwise the word "efficient" fell out of use
after the Soviets took over.

> > Greece, Rome, et al, used various slave economies for years but those
>
> And you don't think overreaching and losing wars had anything to do with
> that?
>

Sure it did, but those influences put strain on a system that exposed
the weakness. The hidden cost of slavery became unsustainable to all
these cultures.

> > I get the feeling you are not well read in on this subject.  Did you flunk
> > both history and poly-sci the same semester?
>
> Typical rightwing attack. At least I went to college.

Did you actually go to class or were you spending all your time in
protests and demonstrations?

> > Fascists are Socialists.  Italy and Germany were the only successful
> > economic models of socialism.  The Russian model was an economic disaster.
>
> You misuse the terms.

What part of "National Socialist German Workers' Party" do you not
understand?

> > All three models allowed criminal behavior by the parties and leaders in
> > power because "the end justifies the means", the underlying concept of all
> > socialist theories.
>
> Oh, please tell everyone that monarchies didn't do the same thing.

Some did, some didn't. In retrospect the Tsar and Kaiser were never
as bad as the Communist Party or Nazis.

> It is not Obama making the exceptions for the trillionaires. It is the
> Fascist Tea Party, bankrolled by the John Birch Society.

Wrong. President Obama gave permission for Pelosi to exempt 20+
California corporations from Obamacare. They convinced Pelosi these
local corporations couldn't afford it and still continue paying high
California income and property taxes too. They also made huge
donations to the incumbent in the past election to show appreciation
for these huge cost saving exemptions. Medium and small business need
not apply.

The Tea Party is obviously a classic all-American grassroots
movement. If they preferred Obama you would be singing their praises
and extolling their virtues.

> > Higher taxes means lower discretionary income for consumers, less capital
> > expenditures for businesses, and fewer bonuses for employees.  Does that
> > sound like a healthy economy to you?
>
> Your theory is looney tunes and what caused the slump and massive deficits.

Which part is looney tunes? Higher taxes don't lower discretionary
income?!! We were taught that in basic Economics 101. Higher taxes
dampen inflation by causing a reduction in spending by siphoning off
available cash from families and companies. Higher taxes and interest
rates are a double whammy to put the brakes on the US economy.

Higher taxes shrink the bottom line for a business and/or cause higher
prices, slowing down the growth of any company large or small. Slower
growth and declining profits, a trend causing companies to postpone
capital acquisitions or worse, lay off workers. Even with the lowest
interest rates of all time the prospect of much higher taxes has
created such a negative impact on the business sector that even zero
interest rates have negligible effect. Add to this higher gas prices
and negatives are piling up on a struggling US economy.

Fewer bonuses cause employees to postpone buying decisions for new
furniture, new car, extra car, taking a vacation, remodel a room,
build a patio or deck, backyard swimming pool, etc. All these
decisions collectively are a downer for the private sector of the US
economy.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> >> So, is it OK if Japan nukes the US?
>
> > What do you mean "is it OK"?  If Japan had the weapons and delivery
> > systems to retaliate they would not need permission from anyone.
>
> So it's ok with you if Japan nukes the US.

I doubt they will ask my permission.

> How about al Qaeda?

They won't either so my opinion is irrelevant to them both.

> JFK refuse to bomb Cuba because he said he didn't want to have another
> Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor is located on an island. Cuba is an island too, so JFK
didn't want to appear like the Japanese sneak attack? Then why make
any commitments to the Free Cubans risking their lives trusting in US
backup? Why not simply declare the Castro government an outlaw nation
and support Cuban refugees trying to reclaim there native land?
Castro expressed belligerence toward the US and it's philosophy of a
free enterprise democracy. Cuban refugees wanted to overturn this
Socialist one-election-for-all-time "Presidente." Most of the other
Central and South American countries treated him like a pariah so he
was pretty much isolated. The USSR spent decades trying to prop up
this moribund economy until they ran into economic problems
themselves. Communism is nothing more than a modern day slave state
which proves once again slavery is not a viable longterm economic
model. Russia and China are allowing more free market economic
elements into their economy for the simple reason they work.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <519a6a38$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Damn shame her excellent book, "March of Folly; From Troy to Vietnam"
wasn't available at the time. The Best and Brightest could have well
benefited from reading it before they marched to folly.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Eisenhower started the march into Vietnam. JFK inherited it. Obama did
not start the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. A Republican did. Obama
inherited them and he is ending them.
Just as JFK wanted to end the war in Vietnam, but he was killed before
he could.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/21/2013 1:22 AM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>>>> So, is it OK if Japan nukes the US?
>>
>>> What do you mean "is it OK"? If Japan had the weapons and delivery
>>> systems to retaliate they would not need permission from anyone.
>>
>> So it's ok with you if Japan nukes the US.
>
> I doubt they will ask my permission.
>

I didn't say that. I asked if you would be ok with Japan nuking the US.
Not asking you for permission. You always misinterpret the question to
avoid answering it.

>> How about al Qaeda?
>
> They won't either so my opinion is irrelevant to them both.
>

Same evasion. If they did you'd be ok with it?

>> JFK refuse to bomb Cuba because he said he didn't want to have another
>> Pearl Harbor.
>
> Pearl Harbor is located on an island. Cuba is an island too, so JFK
> didn't want to appear like the Japanese sneak attack? Then why make
> any commitments to the Free Cubans risking their lives trusting in US
> backup? Why not simply declare the Castro government an outlaw nation

Nixon promised the backup. Kennedy said no. The CIA promised the backup
and thought that JFK would change his mind and send in the US troops.

> and support Cuban refugees trying to reclaim there native land?

JFK DID support Cuban refugees trying to reclaim there [sic] native land.

> Castro expressed belligerence toward the US and it's philosophy of a
> free enterprise democracy. Cuban refugees wanted to overturn this

You tend to forget that it was the US which supported the Cuban
revolution to oust Battista. The US turned on Castro when he closed the
casinos, but the Mafia in prison and seized US assets. Then the CIA
started trying to kill Castro. He got a little annoyed by that.

> Socialist one-election-for-all-time "Presidente." Most of the other

Oh, you mean like Battista? Funny how you are ok with a dictator as long
as he is a Fascist.

> Central and South American countries treated him like a pariah so he
> was pretty much isolated. The USSR spent decades trying to prop up

After they were forced to by the US.

> this moribund economy until they ran into economic problems

Because the US sabotaged the Cuban economy.
Just as we did in Chile before we sponsored that coup.

> themselves. Communism is nothing more than a modern day slave state
> which proves once again slavery is not a viable longterm economic
> model. Russia and China are allowing more free market economic
> elements into their economy for the simple reason they work.
>

Slavery has been a viable longterm economic model for centuries.
Then we tried a new thing called Democracy.
But still slavery persists.

>
>
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <cfb52486-3635-4ad7...@j4g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...

>
>Anthony,
>
>> >> So, is it OK if Japan nukes the US?
>>

>> > What do you mean "is it OK"? =A0If Japan had the weapons and delivery

Right. All the communist had to get off their hardcore high-horse and ease up
on their hardcore doctrine. They remain more or less dictators of course but
their doctrine isn't near as pure as they would have us believe. I can't think
of a country that didn't have to loosen their grip, including Vietnam and even
Castro.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

But I didn't take POLL-SCI.
You are shooting blanks.
What did you flunk in college?
English?

[Bill Clarke]

In article <519b8fa9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

While that is true he certainly didn't start the war in Vietnam. Your
hero did.

Obama did
>not start the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. A Republican did. Obama
>inherited them and he is ending them.
>Just as JFK wanted to end the war in Vietnam, but he was killed before
>he could.

Horse apples. Of course he wanted an end to the war. What you don't tell
us is that he wanted an end with the South Vietnamese still in control of
the south.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Revisionism. We already had the military advisors in Vietnam when JFK
took office, more than allowed by the Geneva agreements. JFK increased
the numbers. But the war was already in progress. JFK did not start the
war. That is just cheap slander from a rightwinger.

> Obama did
>> not start the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. A Republican did. Obama
>> inherited them and he is ending them.
>> Just as JFK wanted to end the war in Vietnam, but he was killed before
>> he could.
>
> Horse apples. Of course he wanted an end to the war. What you don't tell
> us is that he wanted an end with the South Vietnamese still in control of
> the south.
>

I've said that many times. He wanted the South Vietnamese to take over
the fighting. That's what he told Cronkite in the CBS interview.
Everyone can see that you are misrepresenting what I have said to push a
rightwing agenda.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <519cee5c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

JFK increased the numbers? My god, I guess a jump from less than 1,000 to
over 16,500 is in fact a hell of an increase. Why don't you also tell us
about the jet fighters and bombers, the M-113s and the helicopter units
JFK also sent. Why do you omit the mission creep of the advisors into
combat operations? And you call me a revisionist? What a joke, Marsh.

>> Obama did
>>> not start the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. A Republican did. Obama
>>> inherited them and he is ending them.
>>> Just as JFK wanted to end the war in Vietnam, but he was killed before
>>> he could.
>>
>> Horse apples. Of course he wanted an end to the war. What you don't tell
>> us is that he wanted an end with the South Vietnamese still in control of
>> the south.
>>
>
>I've said that many times. He wanted the South Vietnamese to take over
>the fighting. That's what he told Cronkite in the CBS interview.
>Everyone can see that you are misrepresenting what I have said to push a
>rightwing agenda.

Everyone can see that you are the one here misrepresenting facts by
omitting the actual facts; a disinformation tactic you are well acquainted
with.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

The fact is that the war was already going on when JFK took office. He
inherited it.

Why don't you complain about Eisenhower exceeding the allowed numbers of
adviors? Because he was a Republican.

>
>>> Obama did
>>>> not start the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. A Republican did. Obama
>>>> inherited them and he is ending them.
>>>> Just as JFK wanted to end the war in Vietnam, but he was killed before
>>>> he could.
>>>
>>> Horse apples. Of course he wanted an end to the war. What you don't tell
>>> us is that he wanted an end with the South Vietnamese still in control of
>>> the south.
>>>
>>
>> I've said that many times. He wanted the South Vietnamese to take over
>> the fighting. That's what he told Cronkite in the CBS interview.
>> Everyone can see that you are misrepresenting what I have said to push a
>> rightwing agenda.
>
> Everyone can see that you are the one here misrepresenting facts by
> omitting the actual facts; a disinformation tactic you are well acquainted
> with.

The equipment is not troops.

>
> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <519d7abb$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Because it doesn't much make a damn. Ho was the first to violate the
Geneva agreement when he left 10,000 stay behinds in the South. The
Geneva Accords was a joke, just like any agreement signed by the
communist.

>>>> Obama did
>>>>> not start the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. A Republican did. Obama
>>>>> inherited them and he is ending them.
>>>>> Just as JFK wanted to end the war in Vietnam, but he was killed before
>>>>> he could.
>>>>
>>>> Horse apples. Of course he wanted an end to the war. What you don't tell
>>>> us is that he wanted an end with the South Vietnamese still in control of
>>>> the south.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've said that many times. He wanted the South Vietnamese to take over
>>> the fighting. That's what he told Cronkite in the CBS interview.
>>> Everyone can see that you are misrepresenting what I have said to push a
>>> rightwing agenda.

No one with credibility can accuse Dr. Ed Moise of being of the rightwing.
He is the one that said JFK took us to war in Vietnam in a small but
significant scale.

>> Everyone can see that you are the one here misrepresenting facts by
>> omitting the actual facts; a disinformation tactic you are well acquainted
>> with.
>
>The equipment is not troops.

No but an increase of 15,000 men were troops. Some of these engaged in
combat.

Bill Clarke