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.


And we've come just as close to Hussain, both in '91 and in '03 yet the guy
makes more noise than Qaddafi still. Face it, the two are very different.

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.

Your claim is still not supported by facts. Do you have a reference?

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

I'm sure this *single* individuals claim is supported by other than his words
no?

This is a quote from the July 17th, 1961 New York Times; "refugees fleeing from
the Communist East Germany. Fleeing to freedom in West Berlin, they say,
before its too late. Officials say the refugees are suffering from
'Torschlusspanik', panic or fear that the door will slam in their face. Rumors
are flying in the East that the Russians will seal the border between the two
Berlins as soon as they sign a seperate peace treaty with East Germany".
Interesting, nothing about nuclear war. The issue of turning over control to
East German officials was the *main* topic of discussion during their June 1961
Vienna meeting.

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.

Eisenhower did it several times, he was aware Krushev was on shaky ground in
his country and 99% of what he said was for Soviet consumption. Eisenhower
warned Kennedy about several issues, including how to deal with Krushev and was
upset when Kennedy disregarded his advice.

Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.

Grossly over-reacting? The ANG units were federalized AFTER the Wall
went up.

ANG units? Great, but Army reserve units were sent in July, the wall went up in
late August.

No nukes were dropped, today there are no monuments to the
dead troops that didn't die fighting for Berlin in a nuclear war.

However, millions of Germans became prisoners behind a wall for the next 38
years and hundreds were killed trying to escape over the same time period. Had
Kennedy reacted like Ike, this may never have come to pass.

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.

Why would Krushev try to bully a junior Senator from MA ? Krushev threatened
military action quite often, Eisenhower correctly believed he was bluffing and
had no reaction, no conflict arose.

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

Kennedy deserves credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he
most definitely blew it on Berlin.

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.

I don't read Ann Coulter (not even sure who she is), I have two history degrees
and take the matter seriously. It seems you, like my parents who were alive
during "Camelot", are too enchanted to see JFK for what he really was.

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.

Don't be, Krushev had a proven record of making ridiculous statements, followed
by no action. Kennedy should have done what Ike did *nothing*, ignore them.
Hussain had a proven record too, his required the use of military force to
stop. There are times for action and times for inaction.

Brinksmanship is over-reacting, invasion is
self-protection. You'd have a hard time selling that theory.

Hardly. The idea of brinkmanship and armed conflict are not absolute entitys. I
disapprove Kennedy's actions in 1961 because they were inappropriate, I approve
Bush's actions in '03 because they were appropriate. Each is situationally
dependant.

GWB did what he thought best in the interest of
the US. Europeans have no obligation to support his policy.

For about the 20th time. I'm not looking for European support, just lack of
interferance and ridiculous accusations of immoral behavior.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"