EDITORIAL: Just say Nobama

EDITORIAL

Just say Nobama

In 2004, George Bush defeated John Kerry by a margin of 3 million votes.  In 1988, his father defeated Michael Dukakis by 7 million votes.  But in 1960, John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon by just 112,000 votes, one of the narrowest margins of victory in American presidential history.  Unlike both Bushes, Kennedy failed to take a majority of the popular vote.

Quite possibly, the American people were onto something.  Though he was a good speaker with a Harvard education — just like Barack Obama — Kennedy had virtually no actual qualifications to hold executive power — again, quite similar to Obama.  It should have surprised nobody, then, when Kennedy’s presidency turned out to be a disaster.

He failed in the prime directive, staying alive for four years.  He shamelessly cheated on his wife, one of the most beloved figures in U.S. history, with cheap bimbos who had mafia connections even as he just as shamelessly used Jackie to leverage his power.  He was addicted to painkiller medication and frequently conducted official business while impaired by them, hiding this addiction from the country.  On his orders American military forces became involved in their two greatest humiliations, the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam.  His vice president, chosen for crass political reasons, who turned out to be even less suited than Kennedy to hold executive power, took Vietnam from the frying pan to the fire and as a result became the only sitting president in history denied a second elected term by his own party.  The Vietnam war cost more than 58,000 American lives.  U.S. casualties in Iraq haven’t even reached 10% of that figure, and Iraq was a far more advanced military power than Vietnam ever dreamed of being.

There are some hopelessly ignorant fools who think, though, that Kennedy redeemed himself during the famous “Cuban missile crisis” in which Russia was discovered placing ICBMs in Castro’s dictatorship.  In fact, this was yet another Kennedy disgrace, one we think it’s necessary to remember this election season.

Far from boldly facing down Soviet premier Khrushchev, forcing him to remove the missiles by threatening war as depicted by Kennedy-friendly media dupes, in fact what actually occurred is that Kennedy capitulated to the USSR, and agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey where they had recently been installed.  This was done secretly, so that American voters would not learn of Kennedy’s sellout.  It’s quite likely that the Soviets knew full well they lacked the raw military power necessary to actually defend their missile placement in Cuba, that if the Americans attacked they could do nothing in response.  It’s likely, therefore, that they never intended those missiles to stay in Cuba, but rather always intended only to use them as a bargaining chip to wedge U.S. missiles out of Turkey.  As such, the Cuban missile crisis resulted in a one-sided victory for Khrushchev.

All told, getting his head blown off may well have been the greatest service for his country that Kennedy ever performed.  But Kennedy at least, to his credit, served his country bravely on the battlefield.  Obama has never done so.  Obama has never been involved in making foreign policy at any level, and though he ridicules Sarah Palin’s executive experience as mayor of a small town and governor of a small state, Obama has no executive experience whatsoever.  Americans have never elected someone like that president at any time, much less at  time of such obvious international risk and tension.  From the voting records, it’s clear that when the elected Kennedy, they knew it wasn’t really a good idea.  But the country was caught up in the Kennedy mystique, his youth and star quality — and this too is disturbingly similar to Obama.

Why did Obama choose Joe Biden as his running mate? Quite simply, it was an admission that he has no foreign policy credentials at all, and need to have someone close by to whisper the international answers in his ear.  But his judgment in choosing Biden is stunningly bad; Biden has already been repudiated in presidential politics because of his proven plagiarism and his intemperate rhetoric.  And Obama’s credentials in wielding executive power are just as lacking, yet he has no vice-presidential advisor to help him in that area.

Kennedy, at least, won the Pultizer Prize in 1957 for his research work Profiles in Courage.  But Obama lacks even that sort of academic accomplishment; his record is totally barren of any specific outstanding achievement by which he can be measured.  All Barack Obama has ever done is trade on his star quality to move up the corporate and political ladders, spending most of his time in the Illinois legislature voting “present” rather than “yes” or “no.”  Not in any context, certainly not the halls of executive leadership, has Obama ever taken a stand and stood out.

On top of all that, Obama has many deeply disturbing skeletons in his closet.  His closest political associate and fundraiser has recently been convicted on fraud charges and sent to prison.  His closest spiritual associate has turned out to be a flaming racist psycopath and Obama has been forced to disown him.  Obama has assocations with terrorist groups who advocate violence against the police, and his wife seems to be a classic America hater, someone perfectly at home in Obama’s former church.  Obama has been happily endorsed by terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and Russians prefer him too — while they are attacking Sarah Palin in a wild frenzy like a pack of dogs, calling her among other things “a worthless bag of hair.”  Scumbags and wackos and criminals of every stripe and description are drawn to him like moths to a flame. That ought to tell American voters all they need to know about who would best protect them from their Russian enemies.

No matter who is elected America’s next president, the foreign policy establishment has already been pushed by Vladimir Putin’s crazed “leadership” of Russia into a cold war mode, and nothing will change that.  Indeed, compared to Putin Obama looks like Winston Churchill. But if the American people intend to act responsibly, they will view the 2008 presidential choice as a no-brainer and select McCain-Palin as clearly the best option for American national security.

America should learn from its mistakes in the last cold war, not repeat them.

33 responses to “EDITORIAL: Just say Nobama

  1. I can’t understand how Larussophobe can be against Obama, when his foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski – natural born russophobe and key anti-soviet strategy brain??? McCainn for sure is brave exsoldier, who fought commies and understands what today’s Russia is, but Brzezinski not only understands but that wise mastermind surely nows how to deal with it.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

    You’re simply mistaken, for two reasons.

    (1) Brzezinski = Jimmy Carter

    (2) Obama has more than 300 foreign policy advisors. There’s no way of telling what his foreign policy would be, McCain has been clear. Obama has not named a single specific sanction he would impose on Russia.

    We’ve said clearly in the editorial that both will be very bad for Russia, but for us the choice between them is a no-brainer.

  2. Err… I think you have a little misspelling there: “… and select Obama-Palin as clearly the best option”. Shouldn’t it read McCain-Palin?

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: Yes! Thanks!

  3. michael mcfaul is obama’s advisor on russia—and he’s a russophobe and a very outspoken putin critic. executive experience???? puuullleeezzz—our greatest prez, lincoln, was an illinois rep before serving one term in the house. hmmm—just like obama.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

    John, you’ve just proved our point. First it was Brezhinsky, now suddenly it’s McFaul. Who will it be tomorrow? Obama’s intitial response to the Georgia attack was an EMBARASSMENT to the country, and he has yet to articulate a single specific sanction he will pursue if elected. We’ve clearly said Obama is bad for Russia, but McCain is the better choice for those who want Russia dealt with appropriately. McCain has FAR more high-level foreign policy experience than Obama, which isn’t hard because Obama has NONE.

    Your statement about Lincoln is ridiculous. He presided over the most costly war America has ever fought, his hand-picked generals failing time after time, winning only by brutal attrition, and he illegally suspended habeas corpus and never got a majority of the popular vote. He forced the South to remain part of the U.S. exactly the way Putin forced Chechnya to remain part of Russia. Moreover, Lincoln never faced a significant foriegn policy challenge like Russia presents today.

    We talk about JFK and you want to change the subject to Lincoln. That’s a no-no. Please stay on topic.

  4. As such, the Cuban missile crisis resulted in a one-sided victory for Khrushchev. That is not entirely correct. Khrushchev was replaced by Brezhnev in part because the Politburo had lost faith in him over the Cuba Crisis. It was more a tit for tat. Where the Russians and Cubans won was the bay of pigs. Kennedy left the Cuban freedom fighters without support. He left them on the beach to die. To me that was much worse than pulling missiles out of Cuba.

    What amazes me about the left is that they Hate bush so much that they will put any boob in office as long he/she is their boob. Obama is not as bright as people think. He has no experience. He has not sponsored one piece of legislation. He has not lead a senate committee. Yet he is qualified to be President? Couldn’t the left put up someone more experienced? Without a teleprompter Obama is lost. He does not know what to say. He makes such gaffees as to equate Russia’s invasion in Georgia with America’s in Iraq. Do we really want this Boob as our president? The choice is simple. McCain is the better option. He has experience. He has led.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: You mean you think it was good for America to have Brezhnev instead of Khrushchev? Can’t see how. The fact is that Russia could never have sustained the missiles in Cuba and it knew that; it put them there as a bargaining chip to get the Turkish missiles out, and it got exactly what it wanted.

  5. Just to point a couple of things out.

    “agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey where they had recently been installed.”

    Jupiter missiles were installed in Turkey in1961 and removed in 1963 but not as a sop to the Russians but more beacuse by 1963 the missile was obselete. In fact JFK had requested immediate removal of missiles from Turkey when he became president in 1961, the USAF prevaricated. So it was no sell out, the US lost nothing removing the missiles given an ICBM was on the scene. It was kept secret more to keep the Russians happy than the US. Check your facts first.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: Bob, how dare you ask us to check our facts when we have posted a link to source material AND YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO. Are you psychotic? Are we supposed to take YOUR WORD for “facts.” What unmitigated nonsense! Please dear, try to get a grip on reality. Post a link or your comment will be deleted.

  6. OK here is a link about the Jupiter missile deployment

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter

    http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.59/missile_detail.asp

    Also if you are so clever why aren’t you able to go and check the facts yourself about US missile development and then you will see that by 1962 the US had SLBMS and ICBMs capable of taking out Russia from much further away. SSBN George Washington Class with Polaris missiles. Wikipedia is good for a start and then follow on from there.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

    Russia also had many missiles that could strike America from much farther away than Cuba. Does that mean Kennedy was paranoid to be worried about them? Great! One more strike against him. Do you think AT ALL before you post your drivel?

    Didn’t you notice that the part on the Wikipedia page that says Kennedy intended to withdraw the Turkish missiles before the Cuba crisis is labled CITATION NEEDED, meaning that THERE IS NO SOURCE MATERIAL TO BACK UP THIS CLAIM? Did you even read your own material before cit us to it? It’s just some guy on Wiki saying it, anybody can open a Wiki page and write unsourced nonsense.

    Our source, the prestious Jamestown Foundation, linked to in the post, states:

    For those with a sense of history, a factor behind the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was Washington’s deployment of Atlas IRBMs in Italy and Turkey, which, in the wake of the confrontation, Washington quietly agreed to remove, as the development of ballistic missile submarines, the final component of Washington’s nuclear triad, obviated the need for forward basing of nuclear missiles off Russia’s southern shore. Forty years later, Turkey, sea power, and the Caribbean as subplots in rising U.S.-Russian tensions seem as interconnected as ever.

    You have your sources, we have ours. Your claim that you have “facts” and we don’t is childish nonsense.

  7. You morons have no “links” in your brains. That is your problem. You can speculate as much as you want re Russia and what your new prez will or will not do. One thing they will not do is poke the Russian bear in you know what. If that happens, the outcome will not be as nice as re Cuba and will be the last time they poked the bear. No enemy has ever won over Russia and this will never change. Sanctions? They must be laughing like crazy in Russia when they hear stuff like that. You need them far more than they need you, especially Europe. And what they have you can’t have it by force but saying pretty please with sugar on it and PAY for it.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

    What silly, stupid, igornant, illiterate nonsense you do babble. Thanks for making the Russophile rubbish look so good!

    Napoleon didn’t march into Moscow?

    Hitler didn’t help mightily destroy the USSR (it didn’t last 50 years after WWII)?

    Germany didn’t wipe out the Tsar (he didn’t last 5 years after surrrenderin in WWI)?

    Your knowledge of Russian history is quite remedial.

    Meanwhile, there is no need for any outside power to destroy Russia. The Tsar and the USSR were brought down by the acts of the Russians themselves, and the pattern continues.

  8. Well your Jamestown journal is wrong for a start as Atla is an ICBM not an IRBM and therefore would not need basing in Turkey. As for Russia having missiles that could strike America from further away than Cuba, yes that is correct but they were unreliable and unprotected requiring to be stored outside in plain view. Russian SLBMs at that time required the launching sub to surface and were short ranged eg 200 miles at most.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:That’s just your opinion. You seem to be an egomaniac who cannot tell the difference between opnion and fact. You cite only Wiki, which cites nothing. You are full of hot air, obviously talking out of blind partisanship, not an interest in facts.

  9. 2 Bob:
    You are indeed correct that Soviet missiles of the early 1960s were not truly capable of inflicting damage to the continental US. At the time soviet ICBMs were ov the same family that launched Sputnik, meaning large liquid-fueled boosters that would take 24 HOURS to fuel and prepare for launch. Meanwhile, we had land-based nuclear systems pointed at russia in europe and turkey, we already had deployed Polaris A1 systems in the sea, and had solid-fueled ICBMs that could reach russia’s heartland from the US homeland.

    2 LaRussaphobe – as an immigrant from moscow, as much as I agree with you on much of what I see on this site, in this particular technical point Rob is right and is not an egomaniac at all. The analysis of how this relates to Obama amd Kennedy is not up to me to make, I just wanted to clarify a technical point.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: Thanks for your interesting thoughts, Vadim, but your remarks are just as lacking in documentation as Bob’s are, and you’re missing the point. Nobody disagrees that Soviet missiles in Cuba were a bad thing. Nobody doubts that they were more dangerous to America than missiles based in Russia. But the question for discussion is whether Kennedy sacrificed American missiles in Turkey or bravely faced down the Soviet threat. Bob is attempting to claim that Kennedy never intended to keep missiles in Turkey, so withdrawing them wasn’t a sacrifice (but actually pulling the wool over the Soviet’s eyes). We’ve asked for documenation, and he’s not provided it. Our source indicates that the Turkey missiles were removed “quietly,” meaing that JFK didn’t want anybody to know about it.

  10. Yes, those enemies that marched into Russia, what happened to them? You know but don’t give the answer for it supports what I said. No one ever defeated Russia. The internal thing is something different. You in USA could do with a revolution to get rid of your tormentors those greedy predators on Wal St. and in WH that are sucking everyone’s blood who is not one of them. The Russians or any other nation would not tolerate it, but because you are so brainwashed you think you are doing fine.
    By the way, if anyone should come up with an idea to “march” into Russia nowdays, they would not march very far. The first bullet they send toward the sacred Mother Russian soil, would result in response by “new-clear” things(as Palin calls them) , as per their military doctrine. No more incursions into this biggest although not greatest for now,country in the world.
    You can go on with your rhetoric and misinfo. that does not bother them but only proves that are on the right track.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: You didn’t even read our response, you ape. What happened was that they destroyed huge swaths of Russia and then soon the entire Russian state collapsed into the ashcan of history. THAT is what happened.

  11. OK, La Russophobe, here’s my proof.

    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/r-7.htm describes the (weak) operational capabilities of the soviet ICBMs of the time. It states specifically how long it took to fuel these missiles, and confirms that operationally they were weak. Hence, the real threat were the missiles in Cuba – everything else could really target Europe only. Do we agree on this point?

    Now, we know that the USS George Washington was commissioned with the Polaris A1 in 1960. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/a-1.htm confirms that there were 5 built by the early 1960s, and all 5 were refueled by 1965. Hence, removal of the Jupiters did not reduce US first-strike capability in the slightest! Especially since there were better IRBM alternatives that could reach all of the USSR from bases in the UK – missiles like Pershing, and Thor.

    Your statement about the Jupiter missiles being withdrawn in secrecy is blatantly wrong. The missile was obsolete by 1962, it was already out of production for 2 years, and the removal of those missiles from Turkey was known to the russians – it was not done in quiet! Please see tech description of the Jupiter here – http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jupiter.htm Now, none of you are experts in the field of aerospace; I am, that is the field I work in. Convincing the russians that the threat to them was lessened because the Jupiter was removed was a brilliant stroke for Kennedy. QED.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: You have shown no evidence AT ALL that the removal was not quietly done, and your suggestion that Russians are not more secure with no missiles in Turkey than with missiles is just plain assinine. Your claims about your credentials are not documented and as such cannot be credited.

  12. You call me ape? You…. Just kidding. You sir is wrong. In all conflicts Russian won and ONLY the last and final outcome is what counts. Napoleon was kicked out of Russia, Germans were kicked out of Russia and the Russians returned the “favour” of raping and pillaging and were simply victorious for their men were still standing and in numbers. That is what victory is all about, who is still standing like in “last man standing”. So your point is meaningless and in line with your vitriolic misinfrmation about this great, cultured and heroic nation.
    ps: there is more real culture in Russian fare remote villages than in biggest cities of USA, including Hollywood. What do you say to that, you ape?

  13. LR, normally I agree with you, but your comment about Lincoln is inacurate.

    I understand the misconception, because I believed the same thing until I studied it further.

    A man named Roger Tawney, selected and affirmed as the cheif supreme court justice was actually the man that both suspended habeas corpus and violated his authority to ammend the constitution.

    A little background, I’m sure you’ve heard of the Dredd Scott case. What happened was Dredd Scott was a black slave who was on a food run for his owner, when he realized that he was in a free state, he questioned a police officer. In essence, he said, since I am on free soil, does that make me a free man. The police officer said yes.

    After all of the appellate courts agreed with the officer, Roger Tawney refused to see the case and decided against Dredd Scott and the officer.

    That is where Lincoln comes in, recognizing that Roger had violated the authority granted to him by the constitution, that is when Lincoln put him in jail. He practiced the fundemental intent of the constitution by protecting an individual (Dredd Scott), from the tyranny of the state, or appointed state officials.

    Lincoln should be admired for this rather than admonished. That is not an easy decision to make, but it was right.

    As a side note, Roger Tawney was a democrat.

  14. Vadim, I work in the aerospace industry, I was unaware that Kennedy pulled out the Jupiter program from Turkey, that’s just because I know it was the Pershing missiles that were removed.

    You can chalk that up to Kennedy’s ignorance. He might be a hero in your country, but to me he was just another jackass.

    Again, the reason why Kruschev won the in that regard, was because Kennedy was a jackass.

  15. Pershing missiles didn’t exist during the Cuban crisis. I don’t deny that the removal of missiles was kept quiet from the public of both sides, but Kennedy knew what he was doing. My point is that the scret deal to remove the missiles was to pool the wool over Russia’s eyes. Krushchev came away thinking he had scored some points and Kennedy lost nothing in terms of missile capability. So you don’t like me quoting wiki for details on the missiles. That’s rich given that if you like I can give links to. egthis one http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/jupiter.htm from which you can infer why there would be no loss to the US in their removal..

    http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2007/0709/whit/white_rfk.html good link I think

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm

    this too

  16. 2 seanquixote :
    First off, since I didn’t say my own opinion of Kennedy, reserve judgment. Please don’t make assumptions needlessly – you might turn into a donkey :-) Incidentaly, I work in aerospace in america as an EE; There is a Jupiter-Apollo missile outside my office windows as I write this.

    Secondly, the US began Jupiter removal from Turkey in Jan 1963, and completed it by July of that year. Thus, the decision was made and implemented fully under Kennedy. Your knowledge of the subject is faulty and erroneous. Stick to what you know.

    Thirdly, Kennedy may or may not be a hero “in my country”, but by convincing the Soviets that they were getting a fair deal, he forced them to give up the only first-strike advantage they had at the time. Since the russian ICBMs in 1962 were crap – and as I already showed (with sources) above – Kennedy already had fielded deployed SLBMs from multiple submarines. Therefore, the Jupiter wasn’t even NECESSARY to US security. Yet the fat and bald fearless leader went for the ruse anyway, thinking that he got a fair deal when in reality nothing changed for the americans and the russians lost first strike capability for some years, until their own ICBMs reached an acceptable level in the late 1960s. Хрущев == дебил, он не смог не сосисок, не ракет построить. Кукурузник… а Вы его еще и защищяете.

  17. “…they never intended those missiles to stay in Cuba, but rather always intended only to use them as a bargaining chip to wedge U.S. missiles out of Turkey”

    Interesting hypothesis but it requires the smarts and cunning that Khrushchev did not possess. One of the chief reason hw was booted from power was because he was an authoritarian ruler who was virtually single handedly making far reaching policy decisions without consulting with anyone. His record in office is:

    1. Agrarian reform was a catastrophic failure
    2. Caused Berlin crisis
    3. Severed relationship with China because of asinine differences in ideology
    4. Boasted to Americans that he was privy to all communications between Eisenhower and various heads of states and jokingly suggested KGB and CIA should join forces as KGB was aware of all communicatinos within CIA anyway. Enormous work done by KGB to crack and decode the encryption keys used by US was rendered useless since CIA realised what was happening and changed the codes.
    5. Precipitated a Cuba crisis that was probably the closest we came to a full blown nuclear war

    Seems to me Khrushchev was an idiot who installed the missiles in Cuba because he thought he could get away with it.

  18. “It’s quite likely that the Soviets knew full well they lacked the raw military power necessary to actually defend their missile placement in Cuba, that if the Americans attacked they could do nothing in response.”

    WRONG! You must be completely braindead like LeMay to think that if Soviet forces were attacked they would not respond. JFK at least had the brains to see how absurd this notion was. The whole purpose of the missiles in Cuba was to defend it. RFK agreed that the Turkey missiles would be removed if the Soviets removed theirs in Cuba were removed. The Soviets were well prepared to defend the Cuban Revolution, and prevent the return of the pro-American military dictatorship.

  19. If McCain gets elected this country is going to be on a one way ticket to Shitville. Wall Street it engulfed in the worst stock decline since the Great Depression. McCain has selected a running mate Palin who admitted she hasn’t a clue what a Vice President does, who’s position was mayor in the ass end of nowhere in Alaska. McCain has no foreign policy experience, and will probably croak before the next elections.

    On top of all the idiot is desperate to start a war with Russia, Iran, North Korea, possibly even China. How is he going to finance it when two wars against guerillas has drained the American economy of funds, with Wall Street in complete chaos, and economic crisis? How is he going to get the number of troops needed to fight these wars with the military spread to thin across the globe? The only way is to conscript every other young American. McCain also doesn’t acknowledge the economic crisis and has denied thee was one. Is such a brainless republican really a good choice? One that might croak and leave a bible thumping valley girl who hasn’t a clue about her job in charge of the USA? Come on!

  20. Vadim, after third party verification of your comment. I stand corrected, after all, I was educated in public schools, however I would like to nitpick.

    The morale in both countries changed. Lending a third world despot a hollow victory was not in our best interest.

  21. Pulling the wool over the russians eyes was not Kennedy’s intention. He was attempting to pull the wool over Americas’ eyes.

    He had just been forced to make a deal with the devil, due to his own lack of knowledge, and experience.

    I may be missing something, but after Kennedy met with Kruschev in Vienna, everything went downhill.

    1. The Bay of Pigs invasion was abandoned after Kennedy himself gave the go ahead.

    2. The Cuban missile crisis was something that he should have expected(and could have prevented) after the Bay of Pigs.

    3. Vietnam was deemed as an american ally, but Kennedy was seen as an empty suit, and encouraged russian and chinese logistic support.

    4. After Kennedy ordered(secretly) the assassination of Diem, america lost the trust of the south Vietnamese.

    5. Kennedy’s VP pick was emptier than Kennedy himself. Johnson decided not to run for reelection because of the status of the war in Vietnam, after multiple escalations, giving the insurgents a moral victory.

    6. The fact that Nixon (hiss) cleaned up part of his mess, doesn’t seem to matter.

    7. The moral victory that socialists won, is being carried over today, with an annoying cadence.

    8. Kennedy showed the soviets that a democracy is weaker than it really is.

    Even after almost 50 years after his death, we are faced with problems that were created by the “Knight of the Round Table.”

    This is not a man to be admired. It does not matter to me, what he said. It’s what he did.

  22. John F Kennedy is greatly admired in Russia and the whole world for ruling out Caribbean missile crisis and avoiding large scale nuclear war. JFK was probably removed by warmanger republican lobby, and Nikita Khrushev was displaced by Politburo just a year after that.
    Both JFK and NKh sacrificed their political carrier and life for saving the world and ending the confrontation.]

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: Thanks for the confirmation that Russians love Kennedy! So much for the idea that he faced them down and humiliated them! And Russians also prefer Obama, for obvious reasons, which is why we oppose him.

    Dima, your intelligence does not rival that of a lemon. Do Russians embrace certain candidates for their presidency because Americans like them? Did you think FOR ONE MINUTE before you wrote your comment? CAN you think? Do you seriously imagine Americans want to impress Russians with their choices? That they want good relations with a proud KGB spy?

    Dude, lay down that crack pipe!

  23. 2 Tower Bolshevik:

    Sir, you are astoundingly wrong on EVERY point you made… Talking so much and saying so little are impressive abilities indeed.

    Bear in mind that I don’t intend to vote for McCain, but in the interest of setting the record straight, here’s a response to your “thoughts”:

    1. Palin has a great deal of experience with the extractive and energy industries, and that is the direction McCain wants to go in.

    2. Age is not a a prerequisite.

    3. McCain has an awful lot of foreign policy experience from serving in senate for several DECADES. He also knows, on his own skin, what the consequences for “limited engagement” and hardware failures are for the people serving in the military.

    4. McCain does not want a war with North Korea – that is impossible and unnecessary – South Koreans can take down any threat from the north themselves – and using nuclear weapons is suicidal for both sides.

    5. War with Russia will also not happen out in the open, and nothing McCain could want to do will change that – but he will make it a point that our allies that confront Russia, its proxies, and its arms buyers will be capable of fighting the Russians off. The Israelis have never let us down; the Georgians screwed up. Incidents like that must never happen again.

    6. McCain has not antagonized the Chinese any more than anyone else in the white house had for the past 16 years.

    7. He specifically stated that the SEC let people down, and has been blasting the current govt. regulators and key people involved in the Wall Street collapses. Yet, you state he “denies a problem”. Do you suffer from schizophrenia? Right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing?

    Note that I’m not stating that Obama is a better candidate than McCain. I’m just saying that your comments, Tower Bolshevik, are idiotic and baseless.

    2 seanquixote :
    No problem, I went to public schools too :) Didn’t regret it one bit though. But college and then grad school kinda helped out as far as technical background is concerned…

  24. Vadim, You taught me an important lesson, don’t repeat something a liberal tells you.

    For that I am greatfull.

  25. Dmitry Mironov, you can make as many allegations of “warmangering” as you want, but Oswald wasn’t exactly a right wing warmanger.

    In fact, he tried to defect to the soviet union, they thought that he was a spy because he was a nutjob, which is why he was in Cuba only weeks before the assasination.

    The Irony, and Johnson would agree, and has, Kennedy tried to kill Castro, but Castro got him first.

  26. Ever since then Castro has been off limits.

    Another curse that the western hemisphere has been faced with.

    Cuba is the Midway in the war of ideologies. the conflict in Nicaragua, Panama, and even Columbia and Venezuela is in some cases directly, and indirectly supported by Russia via Cuba.

    In contrast, the US is not attempting to take over bordering nations of the USSR, oops I mean Russia. In fact the US is only in these countries by invitation, with Maliki’s request, there are no exceptions.

    The american defese budget may sway their opinion, also they are protected by a first rate military without spending a dime. In fact, the the local economies thrive during american “occupation.”

    By the way, how is Georgia doing?

  27. Vadim, I started writing a comment. When I noticed the … , I became introspective again. One of my personal beliefs is that suffering is not a virtue, but humility is.

    Due to my geographical location I am not able to get an engineering degree, however I can get a communications degree.

    Again I thank you.

  28. I would like to analyze this statement by tower bshevic.

    “The Soviets were well prepared to defend the Cuban Revolution, and prevent the return of the pro-American military dictatorship.”

    So, you chose an anti-american dictatorship. Makes sense I suppose.

    Cuba just happened to be the eighth richest country in the world, before Castro. Since then it has become a joke. Not a funny one either.

    There was never a time that the soviets could support Cuba with beds, beans, and bullets.

  29. Cuba was isolated, and Russia couldn’t support them in a war of attrition even if they wanted to.

    Kennedy seemed to have killed himself, the hard way.

  30. For Vadim:

    You have either completely misread what I wrote or you simply don’t understand. Palin may have experience in the fields you mentioned, but that is completely irrelevent to my point. A person who’s only been a mayor in some small hick town in the ass end of nowhere in Alaska and doesn’t have a clue about the world should not be in the White House.

    From his speeches McCain strikes me as a guy desperate for a war with Russa. Iran and North Korea have been repeatedly threatened with U.S military action since Bush declared them as part of the “axis of evil”. China has been facing military encircilement from U.S bases in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and the Phillipines. McCain’s foreign policy experience is very limited. He has played no important role. My point is this: the USA simply cannot afford a third war with anyone, especially Russia. McCain who’s an advocate for Bush’s foreign policy could be dangerous. Read carefully next time before you judge.

    For seanquixote: Cuba was practically a U.S owned piece of land like Puerto Rico. Most Cubans lived like most other Latin American “democracies” do wth extreme poverty. The Cuban Revolution has given people jobs, education, health care, a future. A Latin American country doing that after ousting the pro-U.S dictatorship may seem like a joke to you. The real joke is that people like you advocate infecting Cubans with something they got rid of, and painting it like they’re desperate for it. If the Soviets couldn’t support Cuba as you claim, then the U.S would’ve carpet bmbed i like Vietnam.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: Seems that you, like many of America’s other enemies (including Hamas and Hezbollah) want America to choose Barack Obama. By our lights, that fact alone is the best possible argument for choosing McCain. What you say about him is exactly what many said about Ronald Reagan, the president who shoved the USSR into an early grave.

  31. Tower BShivik, ever since Kennedy’s epic fail at the Bay of Pigs, Russia has seen the US as weak.

    The Cuban patriots were not provided with american air support(as kennedy had promised). You can ignore the fact that Fidel Castro took Cuba from the eighth wealthiest country in the world, to the laughing stock of the entire western hemisphere.

    The only real reason that Castro is still in power, is because Kennedy’s(hands off Cuba) policy.

    Kruschev had Russian missiles removed because even he recognized that Castro was a sociopath.

  32. If you are implying, as it seems, that Cuba is precipice of healthcare, and education.

    The people that are executed in Cuba are drained of blood untill they are semi-consious, because, Fidel can get 50 USD per pint when they sell it to Russia. Don’t get me started on kidneys, livers, hearts, or lungs.

  33. One other thing that I didn’t mention before.

    Your words. “Cubans with something they got rid of, and painting it like they’re desperate for it.”

    They have Potemkin villages too. Just for your educational advancement, Florida is to this day accepting cuban immigrants that are willing to risk their lives, and thier childrens lives on a raft made of reeds, innertubes, or any garbage that they can tie together that will float.

    What could possibly be the reason that they would risk their lives to escape “paradise”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s