Hapaboy, I did not mean to insult you. Really, I did not. I just had (and have) a strong suspicion that you did not live through those days, like I did, so your perspective has to be different. As far as "the Cuban Missile Crisis would not have occured under Reagan because there would not have been a Communist Cuba for Kruschev to put his missiles on in the first place." Really? Who was the American President when Castro seized power? Did you think it was Kennedy? It was not. It was old IKE.... now who was the more "militant" old soldier. IKE who was the General Commander of Alllied forces in Europe during World War II? Or Reagan, who was making "Bonzo" movies about the same time? DId Kennedy make an error at the Bay of Pigs? Seems so. I know that the vast majority of Cuban exiles here in South Florida still hold feelings of hatred for Kennedy because of that "betrayal". But, as we all know, there are two sides to every story, and I am too tired to defend Kennedy's actions (or inaction) in that debacle. But know most assuredly there were reasons. Justifiable or not. But they made sense to a lot of sensible guys at the time. You say Reagan would not have given an impression of a "weak America". Well the fact is that Khruschev never thought America was weak. His miscalculation was that he was an old man who thought that Kennedy was too young and too faint hearted to stand up to him. A miscalculation that sent him and his missiles home with his tail between his legs. End of Khruschev. But all this is really meaningless. Because as history has always proven, it is the times that make the men, Not the men that make their Presidencies great or not so great. LBJ in another time could have been considered a great President. The Vietnam War did him in. Carter maybe could have been a well respected and effective President, but Iran did him in. Bush senior was riding high after a swift "victory" in the Gulf War, but the economy did him in (Thanks in large part to Reagan's legacy). So we (thankfully) will never really know how Reagan would have reacted if he were around to call the shots in 1962, Fortunately he was hosting "GE Theatre" on tv at the time. But no matter what, Kennedy had a cooler head than I believe Reagan would have. Could I be wrong? Yes, I often am. I am wrong about half the time when I am trading. I am very used to being wrong. But I still have my beliefs. And my convictions. And they have served me well for many years. So on gut instinct (OK?) I think Reagan would NOT have been competent to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis, or for that matter any real threat or conflict. He was lucky. He came along well after Vietnam, just after the Iran Hostage Crisis, and before the Gulf War. He got his action in high risk operations like Granada. Maybe we as a nation are just collectively lucky! Maybe god is on our side for real. Peace, Rs7
OK, the guy was still pretty new at the job..only in office 6 months. How would you guys do after 6 months?: 6/16/81 At his third press conference, President Reagan responds to the following: · The Israeli attack on Iraq - "I can't answer that" · Israels' refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty - "Well, I haven't given very much thought to that particular question there" · Pakistan's refusal to sign the treaty - "I won't answer the last part of that question" · Israeli threats against Lebanon - "Well, this is going to be one, I'm afraid, that I can't answer now" · The tactics of political action committees - "I don't really know how to answer that." When faced with skepticism about his administration's grasp of foreign affairs, the President declares "I'm satisfied that we do have a foreign policy." ____________________________________________________ So then Reagan has his two terms in which to become more "Presidential"....here is how grew into the role: 4/11/88 The media discovers a confession in Larry Speakes book, "Speaking Out", released four days earlier: during the Geneva summit, he twice made up quotes and attributed them to President Reagan, whose utterances had in fact been "very tentative and stilted." He also admits having assigned words actually spoken by George Shultz during the Korean air liner crises to Reagan, "since the President had had almost nothing to say." Speakes, who notes that his creativity "played well", explains that fabricating quotes "is not lying" because "I knew those quotes were the way he felt." In another part of the book, he stated that preparing President Reagan for a press conference was "like re-inventing the wheel." 5/31/88 In a speech to students at Moscow State University, President Reagan explains the American Indian situation: the US has "provided millions of acres" for "preservations - or the reservations, I should say" so the Indians could "maintain their way of life," though he now wonders, "Maybe we should not have humored them in that, wanting to stay in that kind of primitive lifestyle. Maybe we should have said, 'No, come join us. Be citizens along with the rest of us.'" For the record, Indians have been citizens since 1924. Now we know why you go by "Jester" Peace, rs7
Allow me to apologize as well for reacting a tad harshly to perceived unjust name-calling from you. Secondly, let me further state that you are correct - I wasn't around during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But I really don't see what that has to do with it. Wait! Let me finish! Certainly when one lives through an event, the experience is much more visceral for having done so. No question. But that does not in any way mean a student of history cannot understand what was going on at the time via reading, documentaries, and other available media. Take 9/11. Will teenagers 40 years down the road feel the way we do for having been alive when it happened? Probably not, but via video, books, and recollections of those who were there, they will undoubtedly be able to a good extent feel the fear, horror, and unease that gripped our country. As they watch the WTC come down on large screens they will undoubtedly get a sense of what we ourselves have felt. So I can understand that you felt the Missile Crisis in a very personal and visceral way, a way I will never be able to, because you lived through it. But, having read on the subject, seen documentaries, talked to people like yourself who lived through it, i.e. my parents, I do have a sense, albeit a limited one, of what it was like. Anyways, I also made that statement because I've heard it from people whom, like you, were adults at the time. If we could somehow do a poll of all the American adults who were alive during the crisis at the time and asked if they thought Reagan would have handled it better, and they all said NO, well, that would definitely make me change my mind. However, as some of your generation have endorsed Reagan on this topic, I cannot help but feel that means it is eminently debatable and not a slam-dunk for your opinion. Having said all that, given the points you and - I hate to admit it but will because it's the truth - DGABRIEL - made, I must withdraw my definitive statement that there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis had Reagan been CIC. You both have made enough points to lower my opinion a smidgeon, which is enough to erase certainty isn't it? However, you compared JFK to a 1960's-aged Reagan, while I assumed a Reagan at the same age - and temperament - he was while in office in the 80's, rendering the Ike to "Bonzo"-aged Reagan argument moot. You also stated that Kruschev didn't think America was weak, but that JFK was young and too faint-hearted. That's the same thing, isn't it? Isn't a country's probable course of action determined by the character of its leader? My argument is that an 1980's Reagan would have deterred a 1960's Kruschev. I don't agree with the rest of your assessment at all. I think that far from being "lucky," the fact that there was no major conflict while Reagan was President and that his terms were sandwiched by conflicts/crises in Iran and of course the Gulf were indicative of the reluctance the bad guys out there had to take him on. Luck had nothing to do with it. Knowing he wouldn't back down from them did. Or perhaps, just as importantly, the perception that he wouldn't. Reagan talked big, spent a lot on the military (I mean a LOT), bombed Libya every once in awhile to keep the world's attention, and had enough Clint Eastwood-ish sound bytes ("Make my day," "the Evil Empire," and my personal favorite, "..the missiles are on the way") to make even the Saddams of the world say "damn, this mofo is CRAZY! Let's wait until he's not around anymore." And the fact that Khomeini waited just until Reagan took office to release the hostages is, in my opinion, a reflection of that. I know, I know, many say Khomeini did it just to hurt Carter's feelings. But I think even the Imam knew Reagan was an entirely different man from Jimmy, or he at least didn't want to take the chance that the next American Prez was a pushover. As far as dgab's assessment that I "grant" that the USSR would have taken over Western Europe if Reagan had gone into Cuba, that is incorrect. I meant Kruschev would have threatened it, but the fact that we had a tactical nuclear advantage at the time combined with Reagan's perceived hawkishness would have, in my opinion, restrained Kruschev. As for why didn't Reagan do anything about Communist Cuba during his terms, well, obviously there was no longer a tactical nuke advantage when Reagan came in, and Cuba was no longer relevant. Cuba was far more important in the 60's, and logically so, precisely because it was a perfect spot for short-range nukes to be aimed at our jugular. Anyway, like you said, we'll never know. This sort of speculation really is merely mental exercise, as are most of the threads in Chit-Chat. But it sure is nice to have folks like you around to spar with. Wishin' ya crazy money, Hapa
No need to apologize. Differences of opinions and different perceptions make the world go 'round. Just a few comments. You said (I think) that I was an adult at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Actually I was a 14 year old who along with my classmates was told by a teacher that we would all ''be dead by this time tomorrow". I look at films of Pearl Harbor. I understand, but can't feel the horror of that day. In 40 years, kids not yet born will see in spectacular graphic detail the events of 9/11, and still, it will just be history. Hard to empathize with events so far removed from one's personal experience. Reagan was born 6 years before JFK. So I suppose there can be made comparisons either way....was a 52 year old Reagan up to the tasks of a 46 year old JFK? My personal belief is that no, while Reagan was a tough 70-78 year old President, was he capable at any age of the gamesmanship demonstrated by Kennedy? At any age? BTW, Eisenhower was 4 years older than Khruschchev. So age was never really a factor I guess in all of this. Khruschchev was younger in 62 than Reagan was in 80. So they were both tough old birds. Sabre rattling guys for sure. But strategic thinkers? Khruschchev, perhaps at one time....he was a soldier. But too fanatic. Reagan, please.....even HE never claimed to be a "thinker" ...he made things happen, but things he implemented were thought up by his cabinet members and advisors. "The Salesman". Is this who you would really want making decisions of his own in real time as commander in chief? We will never know. History is just that. It doesn't get replayed. I could be completely wrong. About everything. It's all just my opinion and my perception. Meaningless, really, because I have no say in the future and no great expertise in past events. Just my own feelings. Peace, rs7