erynthered Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Serious question. Did John Kennedy use preemptive force in Cuba? Please no comparisons to any other conflict. Was JFK’s response in Cuba preemptive? I’d like to here a creative argument on this one. Some of you have a better knowledge on this than I do, I’m looking for opinions, not a consensus.
RI Bills Fan Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Serious question.Did John Kennedy use preemptive force in Cuba? Please no comparisons to any other conflict. Was JFK’s response in Cuba preemptive? I’d like to here a creative argument on this one. Some of you have a better knowledge on this than I do, I’m looking for opinions, not a consensus. 143618[/snapback] Preemtive? Yes! Force? Questionable and open to interpretation. The threat of force was certainly used, and an effective blocade was established, but few if any shots were fired and I don't know if anyone was even injured, let alone killed, during the crisis.
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Preemtive? Yes! Force? Questionable and open to interpretation. The threat of force was certainly used, and an effective blocade was established, but few if any shots were fired and I don't know if anyone was even injured, let alone killed, during the crisis. 143684[/snapback] The caveat being that under some interpretations, a blocade does amount to use of force. Like you said...questionable and open to interpretation, which is why I didn't try to answer the question, as I don't really know...
erynthered Posted December 3, 2004 Author Posted December 3, 2004 I heard some talking heads talk about it on the TV last night and was wondering what some of your opinons were, thats why I posted the Q. I thought it was an interesting debate. BTW, it was Bill O'Reilly and Robert F Kennedy JR. good stuff.
Mickey Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Serious question.Did John Kennedy use preemptive force in Cuba? Please no comparisons to any other conflict. Was JFK’s response in Cuba preemptive? I’d like to here a creative argument on this one. Some of you have a better knowledge on this than I do, I’m looking for opinions, not a consensus. 143618[/snapback] If you intepret "preemptive" that broadly, you could probably call building a nuclear submarine "preemptive". In fact, you could call the deployment of those missiles to Cuba by the Soviets as "preemptive" as it was "just in case" the US invaded Cuba. Further, just referring to a "blockade" in general is a little misleading. Typically, I think people think of a blockade as sort of a net and if the other side trys to get through, you fire on them. In that sense, it wasn't a traditional blockade. What they planned on doing was to board all ships approaching Cuba to be searched to see what was there. Obviously, if nukes were on them, they weren't going to be let through but otherwise, they were. It was therefore, not a complete blockade. Further, as the ships approached, the blockade, such as it was, was withdrawn closer to Cuba to allow for more time before a confrontation. That was really what was the beauty of the blockade. It wasn't a confrontation. It left it for the Soviets to force a confrontation or honor the blockade by going back home or allowing themselves to be searched. Was that preemptive? Maybe what we are really discussing is pure semantics. Lets say it was "preemptive". Does that mean is was at all similar to the invasion of Iraq? I don't think so. One action was not a confrontation in itslef while the other was confrontation itself. You can't get more confrontational that an invasion now can you? I guess what I am getting around to is that whether or not the blockade was or was not technically "preemptive" doesn't really tell us very much. Preemption in the sense it is being used today presents the question of whether or not the US is justified in making war on a country not because of what it has done to us but what it may, in the future, do to us. The missiles were not a future thing, a maybe. They were being built. It was a present reality, not a maybe. Saddam maybe getting WMD's is not really the same as Cuba actually having them with the launch systems within days or weeks of completion.
VABills Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 The caveat being that under some interpretations, a blocade does amount to use of force. Like you said...questionable and open to interpretation, which is why I didn't try to answer the question, as I don't really know... 143841[/snapback] What's a "blocade"?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Beyond the blockade, what about the bay of pigs? That was a preemptive strike too.
Mickey Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Beyond the blockade, what about the bay of pigs? That was a preemptive strike too. 144110[/snapback] I don't think we were preempting anything. We were, depending on your point of view, A) assissting Cubans to win back the freedom of their own country completely independent of any threat, present or future against us; or B) invading Cuba under the pretext stated in A because of our imperialist aspirations in our hemisphere. Again, the emphasis on whether one or another incident was technically "preemptive" is misleading. The brawl at the Pacers-Pistons game was "violent". The bombing at the Atlanta Olympics was also "violent". Does that really mean the two events are at all similar? The idea that Kennedy did something that was technically preemptive therefore criticism of Bush's preemptive policies in totally different circumstances 44 years later is unjustified is plain silly. Besides, no one seriously objects to the idea of hitting another nation or people or group before they hit you when it is clear that they present a reasonably imminent, realistic and proportionally dangerous threat. That is where the controversey is on Iraq, Iran and Korea. Those question are far more complex and the answers much less certain than some sort of litmus test that all preemptive actions are right or wrong. The left, in my opinion needs to stop focusing on the idea that preemption is wrong and more on whether or not preemption is justified in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or whoever we are rattling sabres at lately. One thing is clear, the standard for preemption has got to be pretty strict. The idea that one action or another might be, in a technical sense, preemptive is of not really a very revealing coparison.
nobody Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 I think it was done more with a defensive mindset rather then offensive. And I think we can actually trust the intelligence from back then.
PastaJoe Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Beyond the blockade, what about the bay of pigs? That was a preemptive strike too. American forces weren't used at the Bay of Pigs, it was Cuban nationals who invaded. They failed because they didn't get the U.S. air support they were promised. And it wasn't preemptive because they were trying to take back the country from Castro. The Cubans didn't care about any threat to America, they just wanted to get control of their own country back.
Mickey Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 American forces weren't used at the Bay of Pigs, it was Cuban nationals who invaded. They failed because they didn't get the U.S. air support they were promised. And it wasn't preemptive because they were trying to take back the country from Castro. The Cubans didn't care about any threat to America, they just wanted to get control of their own country back. 144575[/snapback] The popular line is that they didn't get the support they were promised, however, it is by no means assured that they would have been successful had they received that support. They were counting on a mass uprising supporiting them soon after their landing. That never happened and was likely a fantasy from the beginning. We'll never know. JFK concluded that he made mistakes. The mistake he believed he made was to approve the undertaking to begin with, not in withholding any support once it was a go.
UConn James Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Can "preemption" BE a "response"? 144352[/snapback] That's the very same thing that has me befuddled and nervous at the Bush Doctrine. What happens when other countries get together and decide to preemptively attack us on a large scale because they think that we're going to premptively attack them because we think they're going to preemptively attack us....? I'll stop before I get a migraine. But looking at what set off WWI, fear mixed with stupidity equals unnecessary bloodshed.
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Can "preemption" BE a "response"? 144352[/snapback] Yes and no. Hypothetically, hitting the Japanese Mobile Strike Force at sea on December 5th to forestall the attack on Pearl Harbor would constitute "preemption", if you knew their purpose was to attack Pearl. It's both a "preemption" and a "response" since you're responding to the aggressive Japanese move (as by 12/5 their carriers were pretty indisputably in an aggressive position), and in doing so preempting the actual attack. But even then...though it's clearer than the Cuban Missile Crisis example, it's still a pretty hazy distinction. But I'd say it's at least theoretically possible for it to be both...
blzrul Posted December 4, 2004 Posted December 4, 2004 Yes and no. Hypothetically, hitting the Japanese Mobile Strike Force at sea on December 5th to forestall the attack on Pearl Harbor would constitute "preemption", if you knew their purpose was to attack Pearl. It's both a "preemption" and a "response" since you're responding to the aggressive Japanese move (as by 12/5 their carriers were pretty indisputably in an aggressive position), and in doing so preempting the actual attack. But even then...though it's clearer than the Cuban Missile Crisis example, it's still a pretty hazy distinction. But I'd say it's at least theoretically possible for it to be both... 144760[/snapback] It all depends on how far back you go and who's mind your examining I guess. If person A feels threatened by person B and says nothing to B ... B could be blindsided by A's action. To B, the strike is preemptive and to A it's a response to a threat. So one must rely on A's integrity, honesty and clarity of mind in making the judgment to determine the truth. And B is not faultless. You see it here. Blzrul makes a general post which takes a position that some wingnut doesn't like. The wingnut feels threatened and lets Blzrul have it. In the old days Blzrul's feelings would be hurt because she didn't mean anything by it - so there really was no cause for the strike and therefore it was not a response but preemptive. That was then, however. NOW Blzrul often posts things designed to freak out wingnuts, so the response is expected and definitely not preemptive. But on the occasions when Blzrul posts something in sincerity, the wingnuts are conditioned to be suspicious and by nature are some are vindictive, so no matter WHAT the content of the post they assume a defensive position and lash out in preemptive strike that they perceive is a response to something Blzrul surely must be thinking. And round and round we go.
erynthered Posted December 4, 2004 Author Posted December 4, 2004 It all depends on how far back you go and who's mind your examining I guess. If person A feels threatened by person B and says nothing to B ... B could be blindsided by A's action. To B, the strike is preemptive and to A it's a response to a threat. So one must rely on A's integrity, honesty and clarity of mind in making the judgment to determine the truth. And B is not faultless. You see it here. Blzrul makes a general post which takes a position that some wingnut doesn't like. The wingnut feels threatened and lets Blzrul have it. In the old days Blzrul's feelings would be hurt because she didn't mean anything by it - so there really was no cause for the strike and therefore it was not a response but preemptive. That was then, however. NOW Blzrul often posts things designed to freak out wingnuts, so the response is expected and definitely not preemptive. But on the occasions when Blzrul posts something in sincerity, the wingnuts are conditioned to be suspicious and by nature are some are vindictive, so no matter WHAT the content of the post they assume a defensive position and lash out in preemptive strike that they perceive is a response to something Blzrul surely must be thinking. And round and round we go. 145472[/snapback] Do you post under theblackbear also, by any chance?
Terry Tate Posted December 4, 2004 Posted December 4, 2004 ... Blzrul makes a general post which takes a position that some wingnut doesn't like. The wingnut feels threatened and lets Blzrul have it ... Blzrul often posts things designed to freak out wingnuts ... the wingnuts are conditioned to be suspicious and by nature are some are vindictive ... 145472[/snapback] The Wingnut is happy the Blzrul has recognized his vast following. The Wingnut hopes that the Blzrul figures out that the Wingnut is neither threatened, freaked out, conditioned to be suspicious or vindictive by posts by the Blzrul that the Wingnut doesn't like. Can you dig it?
Recommended Posts