JFK

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:26:50 -0500, Rachel Carlson wrote:

Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message, but
takes action.

He's the president of the USA, not from Iraq nor from the whole world. Your
boundaries are clearly printed on the globe. Mess around _*within*_ these
boundaries.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php

In article ,
wrote:

It is said that by summer 2004 the troops should leave and Iraq should
have
its own government. I bet 1:100 that there comes up the same mess than
everywhere else (except Europe) where western allies left after messing
up
the area.

yeah, post-war Europe was paradise.

--
Bob Noel

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:55:11 -0600, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:56:10 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. com...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Since LBJ's wife was a major shareholder in the transportation company
(marine shipping) that had virtually a monopoly contract to ship war
material to Vietnam...well, you can guess the rest.

Lady Bird was owner of the Johnson businesses in name only.


Probably. I wonder what the rules were in the early 60's regarding blind
trusts, etc., for government officials.



For the record, to clarify my initial reply, I would not defend LBJ
politically, or Lady Bird. (I am not a democrat.) I was only trying
to point out the inherent weakness in the Asian commitment. As a
congressman who had a reputation as being pushy to get his way, Viet
Nam seems to be more of somebody else's war, (McNamara's, and the
military's), not his.

A blind trust was a notable factor in burying us into Viet Nam?
Mentioned in this newsgroup? That's a joke, right? But it might
actually clarify reasons for being indescisive. How much blood money
does one really need?

It may be a bit silly to give full credit to Jacqueline. But I've had
enough of JFK, a long time ago. I don't see it all, and I'm not
surprised that I don't. _I've seen no personality from him._ We
cried for JFK because we were told to, because we were of the type
back then who could still cry. Those are the sorrows, both of them.

Mike


I am a Reppublican, ("but" or "therefore") am against the venture
capitol in Iraq. Accusing Lady Bird is silly, except to screw up an
argument.

Also, the activists of the civil rights battles of the 60's probably
found the Viet Nam distraction useful, if not crucial; regardless of
McGovern's policies. Who would say they wanted Viet Nam? Except
imperialistic, communist killing (in other countries, we're all
Americans here, (after that McCarthy)) conservatives? Oh, if they had
minded our home instead!

U.S. activity in Iraq is active imperialism, to save the Iraqis and
make a 'safe' area in the mid-east. It's quite a risk, I think. Too
much. Doing so only increases our susceptibility to terrorism. The
Arabs, (crazy or no), have a point, in hating our interference. It is
natural, and a big sacrifice (to the point of one's real manhood) to
accept it. Why keep them around, anyway?

We
cried for JFK because we were told to, because we were of the type
back then who could still cry. Those are the sorrows, both of them.

We cried for many reasons.

I cried because I was five years old, and everyone around me was crying, and
I was scared.

Many cried for Jackie's anguish. And bravery.

Many cried at the sheer horror of seeing (in their mind's eye -- the
Zapruder film wouldn't be made public for years) a man's head blown apart on
a public street.

Many cried because they knew intuitively that the event marked a turning
point in our history, a loss of innocence. Never again would we see our
President as "one of us" -- rather, he would be made "one of them",
protected from "us" behind bullet-proof glass.

Never again could we look at political crowds in the same way, knowing that
there would always be Oswalds lurking in the shadows, with rifles. Because
of the lunatics and *******s amongst us, we would see no more top hats in
open carriages.

The national mourning for JFK that resonates till today had very little to
do with the man himself, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I think it gets LBJ's stamp. It was no coincidence that flight operations
were located in Texas. He also helped keep the Apollo program alive after
the fire, when a whole lot of influential people wanted it scrapped.

I think LBJ helped to keep it alive, but saw it largely as yet another
"make-work" Federal project for his home state.

It was Congress that voted the funds for Apollo, in part because of the
national resonance of the martyred JFK's "to the moon by the end of this
decade" speech.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Montblack at
wrote on 11/15/03 9:44 PM:

("jim rosinski" wrote)

He started the space program.


He energized the space program...
He set a national goal for the space program...
He pushed for new funds for the space program ...
He reinvigorated the space program with imagination ...

Space program was already in place. Moon program gets Kennedy's stamp.

http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/j052561.htm#sound

At least they're not from a lack of it.

mike regish

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mike regish" wrote in message
newsCAtb.164117$ao4.533047@attbi_s51...

So I guess you're going with the "faulty intelligence" spin, then.


Clearly your messages are the product of faulty intelligence.

Funny thing is, there was a letter to the editor in our local paper a few
weeks ago that quoted Buhs the senior on why he wouldn't go into Iraq. It
described/predicted exactly the situation now. You'd think junior would at
least listen to dad.

Takes action myass. He wanted this war for oil and business. He doesn't give
a flying fig about the Iraqi people. The inspectors were going in. This war
is unnecessary. The stern threat was probably necessary to get the
inspectors in, but once they were, Buhs had no reason to wage this war
beyond the almighty dollar. Even Rummy said that if we didn't find weapons
in "x" months, which have long passed, we would have a credibility problem.

And we do-except for those who refuse to face reality.

mike regish

"Rachel Carlson" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

So I guess you're going with the "faulty intelligence" spin, then. And
you
believe that Bush had the best interests of Iraq and the US as real
reasons
for pushing this war. After all, that's what he keeps saying now.

Yeah. "Buhs" is just a paragon of virtue.

OK.

And did Clinton have the best interests of Iraq and the US as real reasons
when
he launched a massive offensive in Baghdad in 1998 "Operation Desert Fox"?
He
certainly felt he did. And in Bosnia, when thousands were slaughtered in
the
air in the guise of ending "genocide"? Or in Haiti? Or in Somalia?

Now, in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of graves HAVE been found. The
torture
chambers (some of) HAVE been found. And even CNN now admits that it
covered up
the torture and brutal murder it knew was going on in Iraq for a decade,
so
that it could stay on Hussein's good side.

Don't take my word, Click here to hear Clinton say it in his own words:
http://tinyurl.com/67rz (small audio file)

Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message,
but
takes action.

P.S. "Buhs" is actually a pretty apt name for him, considering his party
days.

P.S. Unlike say, Clinton's party days? Or does he count as a saint as you
bring someone's alleged personal life into the picture yourself?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

We cried for many reasons.


Nicely put.

"Montblack" wrote:


[JFK] started the Vietnam War.

Truman did, when he supported France's pre-war colonial claims. This after
the Vietnamese army, almost single-handedly, held back, and eventually
defeated, the invading Japanese.

One of Vietnam's first (post war) requests to the US was for copies of the
Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ho Chi
Minh was pro-America in 1945. We turned him away when he came to us. That
was the *start* of the Vietnam War.

Thanks for the informative historical perspective! But to me
"starting a war" requires sending troops, which I believe began on
JFK's watch.

He started the space program.

He energized the space program...
He set a national goal for the space program...
He pushed for new funds for the space program ...
He reinvigorated the space program with imagination ...

Space program was already in place. Moon program gets Kennedy's stamp.

Good points.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

Montblack wrote:

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
I believe Pizza Hut offered a particular pizza they called a New Yorker a
few years ago, perhaps they still do. So does "I'm a New Yorker" mean
"I'm
a pizza"?


These posts are starting to make me hungry.

I'll take a Subway, washed down with a Manhattan

...and a big apple for dessert.


Have an "American" for dessert: it was my favorite cookie (?) as a kid,
although we called them "black & whites". My Dad's the one that really
made out, though: we all cut them in half and gave him the white sides.

- Andrew