After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, BUFDRVR
blurted out:

Not possible from a military perspective. Along with those B-2s goes support
aircraft. What you're suggesting is another DESERT FOX.

No, I'm suggesting many means of armed force...not simply stealth
bombers.

Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man.

Again, I have not suggested it would be. We did not kill M Qaddafi in
the 80's but Eldorado Canyon sure as hell modified his behavior.

Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted
to the SINGLE attempt on his life.

Hussain is not Qaddafi.

OK, then perhaps this strategy was NOT seriously evaluated. You
probably think it was, I don't.

OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did, I'm guessing if Bush
could get a speech writer of similar caliber, it would be just as eloquent.

Quoi? GWB eloquent? Come on now, when was the last time you saw that
adjective used to describe Mr Bush? Never.

Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for
the WALL***

This is illogical, and the first time I've ever heard this hypothisis. How
would you be any safer 3 blocks away in West Berlin then you were in East
Berlin?

Hey, glad I could help in your education. It is a natural human
reaction to want to leave, and "feel" they have a better chance of
survival by getting to W Berlin...and eventually further west.

East Berliners fled because Krushev was threatening to close off East
Berlin to prevent influx of the new Deutsch Mark (the reason the conflict
began). Why did Krushev threaten to seal off East Berlin?

Nope, you don't sound like the former Ambassador of the DDR to me.

Because instead of ignoring him,

OK Mr President...your mortal enemy just tested a nuke and has
threatened a nuke war if NATO doesn't leave Berlin. You tell me with a
straight face, you'll ignore him? Unbelievable...not for a second.

Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.

Grossly over-reacting? The ANG units were federalized AFTER the Wall
went up. No nukes were dropped, today there are no monuments to the
dead troops that didn't die fighting for Berlin in a nuclear war.
Pretty decent job if you ask me...I was living in France at the time.

Kennedy focused the worlds attention on Berlin which forced Krushev to act.

The "Second Berlin Crisis" started in 1958, Krushchev increased the
level of rhetoric (threatening nuke war) to test JFK, to see if he
could bully JFK. He could not.

Khrushchev attempted to bully JFK again in Oct 1962, again Khrushchev
failed. Again JFK was successful...No Nuclear War.

If you see JFK's conduct in either of these crisis as poor, I'd
suggest you've read too much Ann Coulter revisionist history.

Somewhat interesting is your opinion that JFK over-reacted (with NO
COMBAT) to Khruschev's "threat", but GWB using force to remove Hussein
as a threat is normal (i.e. not over-reacting). I'm confused by this
apparent stance. Brinksmanship is over-reacting, invasion is
self-protection. You'd have a hard time selling that theory.

However, acting independant of the UN has gotten us accused of some kind of
immoral international behavior, this is my point.

I understand your point, but I am uncomfortable with the US in the
role of the aggressor. GWB did what he thought best in the interest of
the US. Europeans have no obligation to support his policy.

Juvat