Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Obama Conspiracy


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mark...you speak as if Obama has power to do those things. A dog will not

bite the hand that is feeding him. A sock puppet moves only when the hand

up its bottom moves it.

Jack

I know. I'm wishing out loud a bit here.

Although JFK set a precedent as a leader who tried to take control and set the agenda himself.

Mark / Jack,

That is what I am talking about; the man hasn't even taken office and he's already been tried, sentenced and condemned.

After 6 months I think it could be fair to criticize him if he hasn't met your expectations, but even before inauguration?

Evan, I'm still hopeful that Obama might bring some meaningful change in direction for the US, although I'm not overly confident that this will occur.

I certainly haven't tried, sentenced and condemned Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mark...you speak as if Obama has power to do those things. A dog will not

bite the hand that is feeding him. A sock puppet moves only when the hand

up its bottom moves it.

Jack

I know. I'm wishing out loud a bit here.

Although JFK set a precedent as a leader who tried to take control and set the agenda himself.

Mark / Jack,

That is what I am talking about; the man hasn't even taken office and he's already been tried, sentenced and condemned.

After 6 months I think it could be fair to criticize him if he hasn't met your expectations, but even before inauguration?

Evan, I'm still hopeful that Obama might bring some meaningful change in direction for the US, although I'm not overly confident that this will occur.

I certainly haven't tried, sentenced and condemned Obama.

Okay Mark - sorry to have misinterpreted you. I have high hopes for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US foreign policy is such a disastrous mess that I think his best option is to use his current global popularity and support to bring about the necessary changes, and go over the heads of the Western media and big money interests.

Translation from code, “the Jews”.

JFK would be a useful model for Obama in changing the direction of foreign policy, imo

Let’s see JFK:

• greatly escalated the US’s involvement in Vietnam and overthrew Diem

• authorized the BoP and continued to try to overthrow Castro

• backed the coup which brought the Baath party into power in Iraqi

• in 1963 backed coups in the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras and Guatemala, the first 2 were against elected leftist governments the latter 2 against dictatorships which seem poised to allow democratic elections.

• only removed missiles in Turkey targeting the USSR after the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba and only agreed to do so if the quid pro quo were kept secret. His administrations insistence on these conditions helped bring the world closer to Armageddon then any time before or since.

So how exactly did he “chang(e) the direction of foreign policy”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US foreign policy is such a disastrous mess that I think his best option is to use his current global popularity and support to bring about the necessary changes, and go over the heads of the Western media and big money interests.

Translation from code, “the Jews”.

JFK would be a useful model for Obama in changing the direction of foreign policy, imo

Let’s see JFK:

• greatly escalated the US’s involvement in Vietnam and overthrew Diem

• authorized the BoP and continued to try to overthrow Castro

• backed the coup which brought the Baath party into power in Iraqi

• in 1963 backed coups in the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras and Guatemala, the first 2 were against elected leftist governments the latter 2 against dictatorships which seem poised to allow democratic elections.

• only removed missiles in Turkey targeting the USSR after the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba and only agreed to do so if the quid pro quo were kept secret. His administrations insistence on these conditions helped bring the world closer to Armageddon then any time before or since.

So how exactly did he “chang(e) the direction of foreign policy”?

I am sure Mark is referring to JFK's foreign policy after the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Up until that time he did follow a traditional "Cold War foreign policy". However, as he pointed out, that policy nearly resulted in the end of the world and therefore had to change direction. It is probably what got him assassinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Mark - sorry to have misinterpreted you. I have high hopes for him.

No problems, Evan.

I'm still optimistic about Obama's intentions. It's the political system and its corrupt nature which is a cause for concern. But even a corrupt system can occasionally throw up a good one.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure Mark is referring to JFK's foreign policy after the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Up until that time he did follow a traditional "Cold War foreign policy". However, as he pointed out, that policy nearly resulted in the end of the world and therefore had to change direction. It is probably what got him assassinated.

It will be interesting to see how he fares. Obama's term may follow a similar pattern to that of JFK, hopefully with a different ending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK would be a useful model for Obama in changing the direction of foreign policy, imo

Let’s see JFK:

• greatly escalated the US’s involvement in Vietnam and overthrew Diem

• authorized the BoP and continued to try to overthrow Castro

• backed the coup which brought the Baath party into power in Iraqi

• in 1963 backed coups in the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras and Guatemala, the first 2 were against elected leftist governments the latter 2 against dictatorships which seem poised to allow democratic elections.

• only removed missiles in Turkey targeting the USSR after the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba and only agreed to do so if the quid pro quo were kept secret. His administrations insistence on these conditions helped bring the world closer to Armageddon then any time before or since.

So how exactly did he “chang(e) the direction of foreign policy”?

I am sure Mark is referring to JFK's foreign policy after the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Up until that time he did follow a traditional "Cold War foreign policy". However, as he pointed out, that policy nearly resulted in the end of the world and therefore had to change direction. It is probably what got him assassinated.

Frankly I can’t think of any major changes after the missile crisis can you point to any? Rolling back on escalations he initiated (Vietnam, the arms race etc) don’t count. JFK backed at least 6 coups in 1963 not far behind the 10 or so Ike backed in 8 years

PS – Perhaps we should continue this on another thread so as not to hijack this one.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I can’t think of any major changes after the missile crisis can you point to any? Rolling back on escalations he initiated (Vietnam, the arms race etc) don’t count. JFK backed at least 6 coups in 1963 not far behind the 10 or so Ike backed in 8 years

PS – Perhaps we should continue this on another thread so as not to hijack this one.

This "historical analysis" is as honest and believable as Big Tobacco's "scientific analysis" that nicotine is not addictive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I can’t think of any major changes after the missile crisis can you point to any? Rolling back on escalations he initiated (Vietnam, the arms race etc) don’t count. JFK backed at least 6 coups in 1963 not far behind the 10 or so Ike backed in 8 years

PS – Perhaps we should continue this on another thread so as not to hijack this one.

This "historical analysis" is as honest and believable as Big Tobacco's "scientific analysis" that nicotine is not addictive.

:lol::lol: Strike 2!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I can’t think of any major changes after the missile crisis can you point to any? Rolling back on escalations he initiated (Vietnam, the arms race etc) don’t count. JFK backed at least 6 coups in 1963 not far behind the 10 or so Ike backed in 8 years

PS – Perhaps we should continue this on another thread so as not to hijack this one.

This "historical analysis" is as honest and believable as Big Tobacco's "scientific analysis" that nicotine is not addictive.

:ice:lol: Strike 2!

So John, Mark, Drago and Peter snide remarks (made by all but the former) aside what significant changes* can you point to in JFK’s foreign policy (before or after the missile crisis)? Détente progressed slightly beyond levels they reached before the U-2 incident but that’s about it and they might well have done so if Nixon had one election.

* Differences from his predecessors not his earlier policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question, like the aforementioned "historical analysis." is as honest and believable as Big Tobacco's "scientific analysis" that nicotine is not addictive.

It is an effort to incite engagement by honest, reputable correspondents. All who do so play into the enemy's game, the object of which is to secure the illusion of a level and fair playing field.

Until now, the masters of this "correspondent" have avoided "his" engagement in the JFK discussion out of fear of exposure. Are they now so cocksure that they are willing to test the waters?

Don't do it. Don't play their game. You can't win.

The smoke screen is generated from tobacco, and it ranges from lower 5th Avenue to Brazil to Langley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question, like the aforementioned "historical analysis." is as honest and believable as Big Tobacco's "scientific analysis" that nicotine is not addictive.

It is an effort to incite engagement by honest, reputable correspondents. All who do so play into the enemy's game, the object of which is to secure the illusion of a level and fair playing field.

Until now, the masters of this "correspondent" have avoided "his" engagement in the JFK discussion out of fear of exposure. Are they now so cocksure that they are willing to test the waters?

Don't do it. Don't play their game. You can't win.

The smoke screen is generated from tobacco, and it ranges from lower 5th Avenue to Brazil to Langley.

:ice:o:):lol::D:P:lol::o:ice :ice

In other words Drago doesn’t have a good answer. Does he really expect anyone to be taken in by his ruse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...