It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2025 5:34 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 279 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Quote:
President Kennedy faced a foe more relentless than Khrushchev, just across the Potomac: the bellicose Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for the deployment of nuclear weapons and kept pressing to invade Cuba. A presidential historian reveals that Kennedy's success in fending them off may have been his most consequential victory.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ry/309496/

It certainly does not seem like the CIA was working for the president in this case. More like he had to fight to reign them in.

And you have yet to offer any explanation of the leaks about Trump.



Do you even pay attention to the News?


You've run out of arguments on this topic, and instead want to talk about Hitler and be passive aggressive. I accept that you are done with this topic, and say happy Friday.



You keep bringing up Hitler. I made a comp. And moved on. Trump undermined the intelligence community from the time that he was elected President. If you don't know why they'd decided to leak stuff then I don't know what to tell you.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Quote:
President Kennedy faced a foe more relentless than Khrushchev, just across the Potomac: the bellicose Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for the deployment of nuclear weapons and kept pressing to invade Cuba. A presidential historian reveals that Kennedy's success in fending them off may have been his most consequential victory.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ry/309496/

It certainly does not seem like the CIA was working for the president in this case. More like he had to fight to reign them in.

And you have yet to offer any explanation of the leaks about Trump.



Do you even pay attention to the News?


You've run out of arguments on this topic, and instead want to talk about Hitler and be passive aggressive. I accept that you are done with this topic, and say happy Friday.



You keep bringing up Hitler. I made a comp. And moved on. Trump undermined the intelligence community from the time that he was elected President. If you don't know why they'd decided to leak stuff then I don't know what to tell you.


But I thought the CIA worked for the president, and they would not carry out an operation without his approval.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Quote:
President Kennedy faced a foe more relentless than Khrushchev, just across the Potomac: the bellicose Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for the deployment of nuclear weapons and kept pressing to invade Cuba. A presidential historian reveals that Kennedy's success in fending them off may have been his most consequential victory.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ry/309496/

It certainly does not seem like the CIA was working for the president in this case. More like he had to fight to reign them in.

And you have yet to offer any explanation of the leaks about Trump.



Do you even pay attention to the News?


You've run out of arguments on this topic, and instead want to talk about Hitler and be passive aggressive. I accept that you are done with this topic, and say happy Friday.



You keep bringing up Hitler. I made a comp. And moved on. Trump undermined the intelligence community from the time that he was elected President. If you don't know why they'd decided to leak stuff then I don't know what to tell you.


But I thought the CIA worked for the president, and they would not carry out an operation without his approval.


You aren't making much sense.

You got it wrong about Kennedy's role.


You got it wrong about Eisenhower's role.

You overstated the role of the CIA in the operation.


Using your logic the CIA also didn't want Kennedy gone since obviously he didn't approve of the "operation". Just admit that you got it wrong and keep it moving.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:

You aren't making much sense.

You got it wrong about Kennedy's role.


You got it wrong about Eisenhower's role.

You overstated the role of the CIA in the operation.


Using your logic the CIA also didn't want Kennedy gone since obviously he didn't approve of the "operation". Just admit that you got it wrong and keep it moving.


Now you are just being passive aggressive and flat out lying. You return to settled subjects to avoid the ones you are losing on.

If you read the link I posted it confirms everything I said. The CIA worked to dupe Kennedy into launching the Bay of Pigs. It was an operation approved by Eisenhower. The CIA knew that it would fail unless Kennedy ordered in direct American military intervention. They did not disclose this to Kennedy prior to his approving the actions. The CIA and joint chiefs assumed that Kennedy would agree with them and send in the Air Force and Marines. He didn't. The operation was a total failure.

After that Kennedy did not trust the CIA, and the CIA continued to operate it's anti-Castro operations with minimum oversight. They angered Kennedy to the point that he said the splinter into a thousand pieces line a month before his death.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
No major operation is ever conducted without the knowledge of the President. The Macro side is conducted under the direction of the president. Micro side isn't. The Covert Castro stuff was conducted by Eisenhower and Kennedy. The CIA wanted Kennedy dead because he sold them out with the Bay of Pigs. The Bay of Pigs perfectly illustrates what I am talking about.


The Bay of Pigs required military intervention that's why the president was involved. There were major operations being carried out without JFK's knowledge, which is why he said splinter it into a thousand pieces. Your statement no major operation... is simply a article of faith. You have zero way of knowing that.



This is not factual.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... hyCdDcpOJg

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Kennedy had already given the order to kill Castro so it doesn't matter if he knew the methods to be used. That is what I meant by "plausible deniability". The order to kill Castro came first from Eisenhower then Kennedy. Eisenhower debriefed Kennedy on the Bay of Pigs invasion before he became President so I don't where exactly the trickery occurred. Kennedy hung his director out to dry that is why the CIA hated him. You have to read "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner. There were at least 8 attempts made on Castro's life by the CIA. The President makes the call on that. This wasn't some Rogue operation done at the behest of the director.


Of course Kennedy is going to say he was tricked but that was his way of trying to save his own ass.


Castro came to the US in 59. Eisenhower ordered him dead? Seems like the perfect opportunity.

On the Bay of Pigs-Kennedy was the liar? Not the group that tried to call for a full scale invasion of Cuba. This is entirely an article of faith on your behalf. You have zero way to prove that the CIA calls the president before each "major operation" as you put it. Kennedy fired the CIA chief who he felt lied to him about the Bay of Pigs. If the CIA was a benevolent organization that serves "at the pleasure of the president" as you are asserting, then why would the CIA hate him for making changes? In your own post above you seem to assert that the CIA has it's own political agenda. If you grant that, then even you have to admit that it's likely the CIA has done things against the political views of the sitting president.
Presidents come and go. The CIA remains in place.

If the president is so in charge of the CIA why are all of these leaks about Trump and Russia coming out? Where is this information coming from?



The part about Eisenhower not being behind the operation is also false. You just called me a liar when you clearly state that he wasn't behind it. Now you are lying by claiming that you said he was behind the original plan to overthrow Castro. You clearly didn't know it was an Eisenhower operation.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:

You aren't making much sense.

You got it wrong about Kennedy's role.


You got it wrong about Eisenhower's role.

You overstated the role of the CIA in the operation.


Using your logic the CIA also didn't want Kennedy gone since obviously he didn't approve of the "operation". Just admit that you got it wrong and keep it moving.


Now you are just being passive aggressive and flat out lying. You return to settled subjects to avoid the ones you are losing on.

If you read the link I posted it confirms everything I said. The CIA worked to dupe Kennedy into launching the Bay of Pigs. It was an operation approved by Eisenhower. The CIA knew that it would fail unless Kennedy ordered in direct American military intervention. They did not disclose this to Kennedy prior to his approving the actions. The CIA and joint chiefs assumed that Kennedy would agree with them and send in the Air Force and Marines. He didn't. The operation was a total failure.

After that Kennedy did not trust the CIA, and the CIA continued to operate it's anti-Castro operations with minimum oversight. They angered Kennedy to the point that he said the splinter into a thousand pieces line a month before his death.



I just provided an article which backs up my claim regarding Kennedys involvement in the operation. The operation doesn't occur if Kennedy doesn't provide the go ahead. You have already been discredited in your claim that the CIA ordered the invasion. Now you are claiming that Kennedy admitted to being tricked. Even if he was tricked it still backs up the fact that he ordered the invasion. The invasion doesn't occur with his approval.

You are sounding foolish by providing all of these different rationales as to why it happened. You didn't even know about Eisenhower''s role in all of it. Kennedy wanted Castro gone . So much so that he strongly considered using the mob to do it. If he didn't want Castro dead do you think that the CIA would have gone to such great lengths to get rid of him?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
I just provided an article which backs up my claim regarding Kennedys involvement in the operation. The operation doesn't occur if Kennedy doesn't provide the go ahead. You have already been discredited in your claim that the CIA ordered the invasion. Now you are claiming that Kennedy admitted to being tricked. Even if he was tricked it still backs up the fact that he ordered the invasion. The invasion doesn't occur with his approval.

You are sounding foolish by providing all of these different rationales as to why it happened. You didn't even know about Eisenhower''s role in all of it. Kennedy wanted Castro gone . So much so that he strongly considered using the mob to do it. If he didn't want Castro dead do you think that the CIA would have gone to such great lengths to get rid of him?

:lol:

You are flat out lying now to make a ridiculous point.

The CIA planned the invasion. Whose plan was it? I said Kennedy approved the operation, but it was under false pretenses. What point are you trying to make anymore other than trying to be insulting?

If the CIA serves the president, why did this operation carry over? Why did the CIA use deception to get the operation approved? You get on these positions and twist your logic to the point that you end up saying things like southern slave holders deserve the most credit for ending slavery.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I just provided an article which backs up my claim regarding Kennedys involvement in the operation. The operation doesn't occur if Kennedy doesn't provide the go ahead. You have already been discredited in your claim that the CIA ordered the invasion. Now you are claiming that Kennedy admitted to being tricked. Even if he was tricked it still backs up the fact that he ordered the invasion. The invasion doesn't occur with his approval.

You are sounding foolish by providing all of these different rationales as to why it happened. You didn't even know about Eisenhower''s role in all of it. Kennedy wanted Castro gone . So much so that he strongly considered using the mob to do it. If he didn't want Castro dead do you think that the CIA would have gone to such great lengths to get rid of him?

:lol:

You are flat out lying now to make a ridiculous point.

The CIA planned the invasion. Whose plan was it? I said Kennedy approved the operation, but it was under false pretenses. What point are you trying to make anymore other than trying to be insulting?

If the CIA serves the president, why did this operation carry over? Why did the CIA use deception to get the operation approved? You get on these positions and twist your logic to the point that you end up saying things like southern slave holders deserve the most credit for ending slavery.




I never said that the southern slaveowners ended slavery. You are lying about that.

Of course the CIA planned the operation. They didn't give the approval which was always my point. They didn't give the OK to overthrow Castro. That is the main point and for some odd reason you keep missing it. They don't set foreign policy. The President does.

You keep making the equally foolish assertion that Kennedy's arm had to be twisted in order to carry out the Bay of Pigs invasion. It didn't. Kennedy was on board from the beginning. That is what you keep missing. He wanted Castro deposed but he didn't want it to appear that the U.S. was complicit in the overthrow. That is why he didn't want to provide air cover. They thought Exiles and Refugees would be enough. They also believed that the locals would rise up once it appeared that Castro was going down.

Kennedy had no reason to doubt them since they'd overseen the overthrow of two leaders during the previous decade.

The CIA's miscalculation is the reason that Kennedy fired the director. It had nothing to do with being tricked into into since he was in favor of it from the beginning. You are making false claims and the article I cited clearly debunks what you are saying.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 279 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group