12 Feb 09
1 edit
After reading this article, it appears that he tried to keep it "on the sly".
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/JFK+and+the+Bay+of+Pigs.htm
This seems to be a very good example of why politicians and the CIA should not be allowed to get too heavily involved in the planning and execution of military operations.
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by mwmillerNapoleon, Alexander or Genghis Khan couldn't have succeeded with such a hare brained scheme. The only mistake JFK made was not cancelling it immediately and firing the morons in the CIA who came up with it.
After reading this article, it appears that he tried to keep it "on the sly".
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/JFK+and+the+Bay+of+Pigs.htm
This seems to be a very good example of why politicians and the CIA should not be allowed to get too heavily involved in the planning and execution of military operations.
12 Feb 09
Originally posted by murrowAs far as the "executive order" part of your question goes, it may not have been needed because the Bay of Pigs operation was not carried out by the US military.
Did JFK officially order the bay of pigs invasion?
It seems so, but I see no mention of an Executive Order.
Did he order it on the sly?
13 Feb 09
Originally posted by mwmillerIt was done that way on purpose, to give JFK plausible deniability. Politicians should say "Go" or "No-go", and that’s it. It could and would have succeeded if they had fully committed to the mission. They stopped the air & sea support, at a critical point, allowing a slaughter of many on the beach. Leave war to the warriors.
As far as the "executive order" part of your question goes, it may not have been needed because the Bay of Pigs operation was not carried out by the US military.
13 Feb 09
Originally posted by Dace AceIt was suicidal insanity based on the ridiculous premise that the Cuban people would rise up and help invaders. 1300 hastily trained men weren't going to militarily take out Castro's forces even if they had 100 times the air support originally planned. It is a bizarre right wing fantasy that the invasion ever had any chance of succeeding.
It was done that way on purpose, to give JFK plausible deniability. Politicians should say "Go" or "No-go", and that’s it. It could and would have succeeded if they had fully committed to the mission. They stopped the air & sea support, at a critical point, allowing a slaughter of many on the beach. Leave war to the warriors.
13 Feb 09
Originally posted by Dace AceI agree. The day the commander-in-chief started to allow politicians to micro-manage ongoing military operations from their desks in DC is the same day that our military effectiveness went in the toilet.
It was done that way on purpose, to give JFK plausible deniability. Politicians should say "Go" or "No-go", and that’s it. It could and would have succeeded if they had fully committed to the mission. They stopped the air & sea support, at a critical point, allowing a slaughter of many on the beach. Leave war to the warriors.
I don't think the "Bay Of Pigs" really qualified as a true military mission, as it was mostly an attempt at a clandestine operation orchestrated by some in the executive branch and the CIA. Some "unmarked" US military support was furnished as well, but I think the CIA was running the operation.
As #1 indicated, the smartest think JFK could have done was scrap the whole thing.
The Eisenhower administration already had parts of the plan in motion but Kennedy could have put a stop to it when he took office. Unfortunately he chose to go forward with it.
15 Feb 09
Originally posted by PBE6With the aim of moral suasion, the US only trades with countries that elect their heads of state. The US refuses to trade with dictators!
What's with the continuation of the US trade embargo?
[the above statement was written with 10 gallons of sea water swimming inside my brain]
15 Feb 09
Originally posted by PBE6The USA helped put Castro in power. He was supposed to look after the interests of American business' in Cuba but he did not play ball and sided with the rival empire, the USSR.
What's with the continuation of the US trade embargo?
So it was basically it is betrayal that put Castro at odds with the USA. That is why the USA has a trade embargo with Cuba. The USA trades with dictators and communists like China so don't listen to that guy that says we trade with only countries with high morals. It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with punishing those that did not follow through with being a good puppet and rewarding those that serve the interests of the USA.
The Bay of Pigs failed because Castro was popular with the Cuban people. The CIA should have known better, but they did not want Castro to get away with sticking his finger into the eye of the imperialist power that few challenge. The CIA tried to kill Castro so many times I lost count. He seems to have more lives than 10 cats. It looks like he will die of old age.
15 Feb 09
Originally posted by kmax87OK, I'll try again. "Hey, Metal Brain, uzless was being ironic."
nihilism rules! yay!
Oh dear, seems to have lots its funniness. If it had any.
"Hey kmax87. uzless made a joke. Metal Brain missed it. Then I made a joke. Then you missed that."
There is no point, it seems.
So, yeah... "nihilism rules! yay!"
On Topic bit: JFK / Bay of Pigs. Yeah. Go figure, eh?
18 Feb 09
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE51A77S20090211
Cuba launches own Linux variant to counter U.S.
Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:48pm EST
By Esteban Israel
HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba launched its own variant of the Linux computer operating system this week in the latest front of the communist island's battle against what it views as U.S. hegemony.
The Cuban variant, called Nova, was introduced at a Havana computer conference on "technological sovereignty" and is central to the Cuban government's desire to replace the Microsoft software running most of the island's computers.
...