Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kennedy allowing the Bay of Pigs had zero to do with world peace. Quite the opposite as it was a highly provocative act. His big mistake was allowing that farce to happen. He openly stated that he made a mistake in 1961. Cuba was no threat to the USA. Castro wanted good relations. Their regime and their political system is their business.
How anyone could think JFK was an existential threat after saying he would blow the Soviet ships off the horizon is beyond me. He got rid of nuclear missiles on the USA's doorstep avoiding a war. On the surface he played brinkmanship and won. Under the surface JFK was was talking to the Soviets about the USA removing missiles from Turkey in exchange for them removing their missiles from Cuba. JFK came out the hero. Whether a third world war would have emerged is up for speculation, because if the USA attacked Cuba, this was outside the framework of Nato, with member states not obliged to assist. It was also a situation that the USA created by allowing an invasion of another country from their shores - the training and organisation was all in the USA. Self inflicted.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, just trying to show the other point of view.
Regardless as to how it happened, he was inaugurated on 20 Jan 1961 and about a year and a half later, we are on the brink of a nuclear exchange.
To me, that is a failure in foreign policy.
If Nixon would’ve won the election, I don’t believe we would have been on the brink of a nuclear exchange in 1962. He probably would’ve invaded Cuba in 1961, Castro would’ve been killed, and a whole couple of generations of American people would’ve vacationed in Cuba, and life for Cubans would’ve been a whole lot better these past 60 years.
Now I don’t want to hold any water for Nixon, he surely would’ve botched Vietnam if we had tried. But I’ve read numerous papers that if we had gotten a win out of Cuba, not an embarrassment on the world stage, we might’ve left Vietnam alone. I’m not sure if I agree with that, because of our hubris, but many people hold that assertion.
But is it really a stretch for you to see that people were angry and scared after 1962 and had had enough, considered JFK a failure, and wanted his decision making taken away?
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, just trying to show the other point of view.
Regardless as to how it happened, he was inaugurated on 20 Jan 1961 and about a year and a half later, we are on the brink of a nuclear exchange.
To me, that is a failure in foreign policy.
If Nixon would’ve won the election, I don’t believe we would have been on the brink of a nuclear exchange in 1962. He probably would’ve invaded Cuba in 1961, Castro would’ve been killed, and a whole couple of generations of American people would’ve vacationed in Cuba, and life for Cubans would’ve been a whole lot better these past 60 years.
Now I don’t want to hold any water for Nixon, he surely would’ve botched Vietnam if we had tried. But I’ve read numerous papers that if we had gotten a win out of Cuba, not an embarrassment on the world stage, we might’ve left Vietnam alone. I’m not sure if I agree with that, because of our hubris, but many people hold that assertion.
But is it really a stretch for you to see that people were angry and scared after 1962 and had had enough, considered JFK a failure, and wanted his decision making taken away?
It’s very easy for me to see that.
The Bay of Pigs was planned before Kennedy came to power. He could have stopped it of course. Being green to the job, he never. If Nixon won the Bay of Pigs would have happened. Maybe with more direct US military involvement. Nixon would not have stopped the Bay of Pigs. The stand off in 1962 would not have been averted.
I disagree that "life for Cubans would’ve been a whole lot better these past 60 years." I have been to Cuba. I saw no favelas. Everyone had good and free education, medical and housed. Although the housing could have been better in some cases. The people appeared happy enough. Without US sanctions, the standard of living could have been higher for sure.
Cuba was not an embarrassment on the world stage for the USA, quite the opposite. The USA came out looking the better. Kennedy told them to get out. They did.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, just trying to show the other point of view.
Regardless as to how it happened, he was inaugurated on 20 Jan 1961 and about a year and a half later, we are on the brink of a nuclear exchange.
To me, that is a failure in foreign policy.
If Nixon would’ve won the election, I don’t believe we would have been on the brink of a nuclear exchange in 1962. He probably would’ve invaded Cuba in 1961, Castro would’ve been killed, and a whole couple of generations of American people would’ve vacationed in Cuba, and life for Cubans would’ve been a whole lot better these past 60 years.
Now I don’t want to hold any water for Nixon, he surely would’ve botched Vietnam if we had tried. But I’ve read numerous papers that if we had gotten a win out of Cuba, not an embarrassment on the world stage, we might’ve left Vietnam alone. I’m not sure if I agree with that, because of our hubris, but many people hold that assertion.
But is it really a stretch for you to see that people were angry and scared after 1962 and had had enough, considered JFK a failure, and wanted his decision making taken away?
It’s very easy for me to see that.
i believe JFK STOPPED a nuclear exchange from happening, strange hoe people can interpret the same things so differently
i believe JFK STOPPED a nuclear exchange from happening, strange hoe people can interpret the same things so differently
He stopped a nuclear exchange from happening after he brought it to the brink in the first place.
Do you not get the opposition viewpoint? If he would’ve invaded Cuba in 1961, there wouldn’t have been Soviet nukes in Cuba and the ‘62 crisis would not have happened.
My theory, and Oliver Stone and tens of millions of other people too, all think that if JFK would’ve greenlighted a full scale Cuban invasion in 1961, just like Allen Dulles wanted, then the assassination would not have happened. Everyone would’ve been satisfied. Except Castro and the few who benefited by him being in power there.
Some have stated that Vietnam wouldn’t have happened if we had gotten a “win” in Cuba. I’m skeptical about that though. Invading Vietnam is exactly the kind of stupid thing we would do, and then when it gets too tough or too long, we quit.
There’s another theory out there about JFK printing “red dollars” , which may have angered the Federal Reserve enough to order the hit. JFK, the last President to print dollars not backed by the Fed, JFK, the last president assassinated. Coincidence?
Perhaps the Fed and the CIA colluding together to get rid of JFK?
I do want to add one thing, I’m definitely not a Democrat and I’ll leave at that. No need to bring politics into this other than trying to prove a conspiracy.
But I will give JFK credit. Even though I think he botched Cuba, I liked him. He was very charismatic, and his heart was in the right place.
I just want to make it clear I think he was a very inspirational president and it’s just awful what happened to him, to be gunned down because he wouldn’t play ball with the Deep State.
JKF did not want to invade countries for no apparent reason, which was a great attribute for an American president. He regretted giving the Eisenhower planned Bay if Pigs the go ahead. He distanced himself from it with the invasion force, not being launched from US territory, although US supplied and trained in the USA. Just because a country has a different economic/political system you disapprove of, even if that country is of no threat, does not mean you have the right to invade them. You think that is OK. It is not. That sort of mindset gives rise to what we see in Ukraine right now.
JFK failed on two points:
1) Allowing the Bay of Pigs to happen. 2) Not getting relations normalised with Cuba after the Bay of Pigs.
Castro was fearful of US invasion, as a full invasion was the message coming from the USA. So Castro naturally went to a power that could prevent invasion. Which was no surprise given the circumstances.
"Except Castro and the few who benefited by him being in power there." Having been through parts of Latin America, and Cuba, the Cubans greatly benefited by Castro being in power. He gave them back their dignity for one.
Last edited by Dave Davis; 02-28-2022 at 03:53 AM..
BTW, the Federal Reserve is a private organisation. Governments print money all the time. A normal thing. So do private banks. Take out a loan for a car, the bank creates the money out of thin air. They then charge interest on money they never had - what an earner that one is. When the loan is repaid the money is then destroyed.
A prime reason why US industry spread all over the world after WW2 was that the US government printed money, giving it to US corporations and other large organisations at near nothing in interest rates. They then used this printed money to buy up industries at rock bottom prices elsewhere.
JKF did not want to invade countries for no apparent reason, which was a great attribute for an American president. He regretted giving the Eisenhower planned Bay if Pigs the go ahead. He distanced himself from it with the invasion force, not being launched from US territory, although US supplied and trained in the USA. Just because a country has a different economic/political system you disapprove of, even if that country is of no threat, does not mean you have the right to invade them. You think that is OK. It is not. That sort of mindset gives rise to what we see in Ukraine right now.
JFK failed on two points:
1) Allowing the Bay of Pigs to happen. 2) Not getting relations normalised with Cuba after the Bay of Pigs.
Castro was fearful of US invasion, as a full invasion was the message coming from the USA. So Castro naturally went to a power that could prevent invasion. Which was no surprise given the circumstances.
"Except Castro and the few who benefited by him being in power there." Having been through parts of Latin America, and Cuba, the Cubans greatly benefited by Castro being in power. He gave them back their dignity for one.
So we agree that JFK had a failure of policy which led to the US and the Soviets nearly exchanging nuclear weapons. Why should he get full credit for defusing a situation that he caused?
1) if he truly didn’t want to invade countries, he would not have authorized Bay of Pigs
2) if he truly wanted to be friends with Cuba and Castro, he could’ve done so at any time.
Basically, he went half way on everything, which satisfied nobody.
I have no problem with your thoughts on what we should have done, even though I prefer a full scale Cuban invasion to solve that problem once and for all.
Castro and his men are no saints. They all had a bunch of blood on their hands, and if they had met the same fate, well, that’s karma in my book.
But again, it doesn’t matter if we disagree politically. The main takeaway here is that there were plenty of people who thought like I did, but they took it way further than I would’ve liked, which is to assassinate a sitting President because they didn’t like his policies and ideology.
Then they concocted a ridiculous story of a Lone Wolf out of hubris, and got caught flat footed when most people didn’t buy it.
1) allowing the Bay of Pigs to proceed. 2) not putting out feelers to normalise relations with Cuba after the Bay of Pigs.
Allowing the Bay of Pigs to proceed was silly. Not putting out feelers to normalise relations with Cuba after the Bay of Pigs maybe being wise in hindsight. Distancing himself from the Bay of Pigs, which he mainly did, would not be a climb down, not needing to save face, not looking weak.
He was turning to normalise relations with Cuba (and the USSR) after the missile crisis. Fine, never too late. Which was the right thing to do. Unfortunately he never lived long enough, the right wingnuts got him. Apart from the Civil Rights Bill, LBJ ignored all Kennedy's policies, not taking thru any of JFKs lines. LBJ could have been one of those right wingnuts, rather than a Democrat.
When the revolution was on, Castro was a hero in the USA, deposing the murderous Batista regime. He was featured in Life or Time magazine. Nixon messed up in assessing Castro, this popular hero in the USA, pushing him into the Soviet camp. They never thought he would do such a thing.
"they concocted a ridiculous story of a Lone Wolf out of hubris, and got caught flat footed when most people didn’t buy it."
They really thought people were stupid sheep, that are easily led. They are most if the time, but when they see somthing is not right, or just, they can be quite bright when they want to be.
Last edited by Dave Davis; 03-01-2022 at 11:22 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
