I was thinking exactly the same thing during the election.As a cold war baby, I have read up extensively on the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs as well. I shudder to think what would have happened if the Pentagon had their druthers. I'm subscribing to your channel.
Wait a minute: if Kennedy didn't know about the missiles at the ready, then how can you give him credit for making a level-headed decision? For all you know, maybe he just flipped a coin!
Weighing uncertainty is what a Commander in Chief has to do. When JFK asked the Joint Chiefs how the Soviets would react to a Cuban invasion in which Soviet soldiers would certainly be killed -- what would they do, the JCs replied -- nothing. He thought that was ridiculous -- that WE'D do something and the Soviets certainly would -- retaliate in Berlin or somewhere. That, at best, the situation would escalate.
AND -- the JCs were sure that they could get all the missiles.
The problem is we don't know what Barack would do. He has no experience. He hasn't even finished out his first term as senator. To make analogies to JFK is then wrong. JFK did have a track record on how he would vote on issues. He had been part of Congress from 1947 to 1961. Fourteen years. He, like McCain, was an military officer. And should we wonder if JFK was influenced by the huge amounts of painkillers he was taking at the time? Barack is an unknown. Should we elect an unknown?
My reply is simply this -- our experience has shown that we can't reliably pick presidents by resumes. We've elected great military leaders who've made terrible presidents and great presidents. The same with governors and long term congressmen.
The same with men who had virtually no experience at all, Lincoln chief among them.
That doesn't mean that *lack of experience* per se is a plus -- only that having it can fail to deliver.
So you advocate whatever is behind Door #3 simply because you don't like what we do know is behind Doors #1 and #2? That logic would then indicate that we should just randomly pick someone off the street to be president.
As for Abraham Lincoln, again, you need to read up on history. Lincoln served four terms in the Illinois legislature and a term in the US House. NO ONE was in doubt about his stand on the issues. Oh, he was also a former Illinois militia captain during the Black Hawk War.
If your premise is that military service is critical to the presidency, the careers of Grant -- one of our worst Presidents, and FDR -- one of our best, doesn't support that position.
If you'd looked at Lincoln's career before his Presidency, it would hardly have predicted the greatness that followed.
And who's in doubt as to Obama's stand on the issues? On the other hand, McCain's trying to be everything to everybody - conservative, moderate, even a bit liberal when necessary.
Due to your negative comments about military service, I merely pointed out that Lincoln was also a vet.
And Abe would have made the history books without EVER having been President. He led the Anti-Slavery movement and literally FOUNDED the Republican Party thus destroying the Whig Party.
Barack has NEVER voted on a significant piece of legislation yet nor led any legislative movement. Your video gives no reason to vote for him. None. You should title your video "Vote for the Unknown".
I'm afraid that you are mistaken about Lincoln in both respects. Though it may be called the "Party of Lincoln" Fremont ran for President before him -- others founded the party.
And many abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, accused Lincoln of coming "late" to the cause of abolitionism. Whatever his personal feelings, as President, he certainly placed other issues ahead of it.
And regarding the presidency and military service, Washington supported a *civilian* Commander in Chief.
1) You really need to read up on history. Without Lincoln, the Republican Party would have only amounted to the Reform Party, at best.
2) I hope you are not in any way or form saying that Barack is on par with Lincoln, who most historians consider the US's greatest president.
3) As I stated previously, your video gives us NO reason to vote for Barack. Reasons to not to vote for McCain or Hillary, but no REASON to vote for Barack other than he's an unknown. Same goes for your comments here.
You can't base what Lincoln accomplished during his Presidency as a basis for judging him as a nominee. When he came in to the convention in 1862 he had little national support. It was only by some very clever politicking that he took the nomination from Seward. By no stretch of the imagination was he a party leader or a favored son.
If you're claiming that you can look at the career that preceded his Presidency and see the greatness that followed, you're simply seeing what you want to see.
1) Let us stop comparing Barack to Lincoln. That is laughable. If you think he's another Lincoln, put down the joint and open a window.
2) Your logic that one's past shouldn't be taken into consideration on what one might do in the future is not just laughable but crazy. What do you then vote on? How good is his smile? Think about what you're advocating.
3) For the THIRD time, you haven't given us a SINGLE reason to vote for Barack. Not anymore than to vote for "None of the Above".
You seem unwilling to evaluate Lincoln as he was known before he became President as opposed to the legacy he left us *as* President.
Judged on that basis alone he was unexceptional.
Obama's consistently been on the right side of questions that both Clinton and McCain have been on the *wrong* side of -- including the decision to support Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Quite simply, I think Clinton's a phony and McCain's a loose cannon. I think Obama is neither.
As for Barack, your video tells us NOTHING about him. If he's on the "right" side of all things, redo your video and tell us that. Tell us WHY we should vote for him. Telling us he's not Hillary or McCain means nothing. Voting for him because he's neither is asinine. Your "What if?" video insults our intelligence. There is NO WAY you can say how any of those three would have acted then. Least of all Barack who has NEVER had to make a hard choice yet.
As for Barack, you need to read up on him a bit more too. In 2004 before the DNC, he said he didn't blame Democrats for voting for the war, conceding he wasn't privy to the same intelligence information. In other words, he knew he was just an armchair quarterback whereas McCain and Hillary were actual players on the field.
He says otherwise now shows he's merely another politician.
Your "What if?" video doesn't prove anything. Can't. It's meaningless.
You're a Hollywood screenwriter and your world is made of fluff. Your video represents that. Fluff. A "What if?" video that only a simpleton would find merit in. A video that says nothing for why we should vote for a candidate except that he's not the other two major candidates that had to make a hard decision in an imperfect world. But then that is your candidate. An unknown that his supporters cannot even point to anything significant that he has done except win a US Senate race. Sad.
Resorting to ad hominems don't advance your cause any more than distorting history.
And McCain's whole argument for being president seems to be the same as Bob Dole's -- I was a war hero and I've been around a long time so it's my turn to be President.
It didn't fly for Dole and it's not going to fly for McCain.
And when the race is run, we'll see who's going to be the sad one.
I will agree that experience informs judgement. In a world where wars are protracted guerilla wars of attrition are the norm- I place my trust in the presidential canidate who is less likely to pull the trigger too quickly and that canidate is Obama.
Secondly- when making decisions based on experience is ineffective- judgement takes over in finding a another solution. Read Kuhn's book Scientific Revolutions.
I was thinking exactly the same thing during the election.As a cold war baby, I have read up extensively on the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs as well. I shudder to think what would have happened if the Pentagon had their druthers. I'm subscribing to your channel.
4everfrankenstein 1 year ago
very nice video.
hckyplyr143 3 years ago
Wait a minute: if Kennedy didn't know about the missiles at the ready, then how can you give him credit for making a level-headed decision? For all you know, maybe he just flipped a coin!
CyberCrusoe 4 years ago
Weighing uncertainty is what a Commander in Chief has to do. When JFK asked the Joint Chiefs how the Soviets would react to a Cuban invasion in which Soviet soldiers would certainly be killed -- what would they do, the JCs replied -- nothing. He thought that was ridiculous -- that WE'D do something and the Soviets certainly would -- retaliate in Berlin or somewhere. That, at best, the situation would escalate.
AND -- the JCs were sure that they could get all the missiles.
Kennedy wasn't.
prodprod 4 years ago
The problem is we don't know what Barack would do. He has no experience. He hasn't even finished out his first term as senator. To make analogies to JFK is then wrong. JFK did have a track record on how he would vote on issues. He had been part of Congress from 1947 to 1961. Fourteen years. He, like McCain, was an military officer. And should we wonder if JFK was influenced by the huge amounts of painkillers he was taking at the time? Barack is an unknown. Should we elect an unknown?
BrightFireTiger 4 years ago
My reply is simply this -- our experience has shown that we can't reliably pick presidents by resumes. We've elected great military leaders who've made terrible presidents and great presidents. The same with governors and long term congressmen.
The same with men who had virtually no experience at all, Lincoln chief among them.
That doesn't mean that *lack of experience* per se is a plus -- only that having it can fail to deliver.
They are all "unknowns" -- until they're elected.
prodprod 4 years ago
So you advocate whatever is behind Door #3 simply because you don't like what we do know is behind Doors #1 and #2? That logic would then indicate that we should just randomly pick someone off the street to be president.
As for Abraham Lincoln, again, you need to read up on history. Lincoln served four terms in the Illinois legislature and a term in the US House. NO ONE was in doubt about his stand on the issues. Oh, he was also a former Illinois militia captain during the Black Hawk War.
BrightFireTiger 4 years ago
If your premise is that military service is critical to the presidency, the careers of Grant -- one of our worst Presidents, and FDR -- one of our best, doesn't support that position.
If you'd looked at Lincoln's career before his Presidency, it would hardly have predicted the greatness that followed.
And who's in doubt as to Obama's stand on the issues? On the other hand, McCain's trying to be everything to everybody - conservative, moderate, even a bit liberal when necessary.
prodprod 4 years ago
Due to your negative comments about military service, I merely pointed out that Lincoln was also a vet.
And Abe would have made the history books without EVER having been President. He led the Anti-Slavery movement and literally FOUNDED the Republican Party thus destroying the Whig Party.
Barack has NEVER voted on a significant piece of legislation yet nor led any legislative movement. Your video gives no reason to vote for him. None. You should title your video "Vote for the Unknown".
BrightFireTiger 4 years ago
I'm afraid that you are mistaken about Lincoln in both respects. Though it may be called the "Party of Lincoln" Fremont ran for President before him -- others founded the party.
And many abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, accused Lincoln of coming "late" to the cause of abolitionism. Whatever his personal feelings, as President, he certainly placed other issues ahead of it.
And regarding the presidency and military service, Washington supported a *civilian* Commander in Chief.
prodprod 4 years ago
1) You really need to read up on history. Without Lincoln, the Republican Party would have only amounted to the Reform Party, at best.
2) I hope you are not in any way or form saying that Barack is on par with Lincoln, who most historians consider the US's greatest president.
3) As I stated previously, your video gives us NO reason to vote for Barack. Reasons to not to vote for McCain or Hillary, but no REASON to vote for Barack other than he's an unknown. Same goes for your comments here.
BrightFireTiger 4 years ago
You can't base what Lincoln accomplished during his Presidency as a basis for judging him as a nominee. When he came in to the convention in 1862 he had little national support. It was only by some very clever politicking that he took the nomination from Seward. By no stretch of the imagination was he a party leader or a favored son.
If you're claiming that you can look at the career that preceded his Presidency and see the greatness that followed, you're simply seeing what you want to see.
prodprod 4 years ago
1) Let us stop comparing Barack to Lincoln. That is laughable. If you think he's another Lincoln, put down the joint and open a window.
2) Your logic that one's past shouldn't be taken into consideration on what one might do in the future is not just laughable but crazy. What do you then vote on? How good is his smile? Think about what you're advocating.
3) For the THIRD time, you haven't given us a SINGLE reason to vote for Barack. Not anymore than to vote for "None of the Above".
BrightFireTiger 4 years ago
You seem unwilling to evaluate Lincoln as he was known before he became President as opposed to the legacy he left us *as* President.
Judged on that basis alone he was unexceptional.
Obama's consistently been on the right side of questions that both Clinton and McCain have been on the *wrong* side of -- including the decision to support Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Quite simply, I think Clinton's a phony and McCain's a loose cannon. I think Obama is neither.
That's why I support him.
prodprod 4 years ago
Barack is not Abe. Period.
As for Barack, your video tells us NOTHING about him. If he's on the "right" side of all things, redo your video and tell us that. Tell us WHY we should vote for him. Telling us he's not Hillary or McCain means nothing. Voting for him because he's neither is asinine. Your "What if?" video insults our intelligence. There is NO WAY you can say how any of those three would have acted then. Least of all Barack who has NEVER had to make a hard choice yet.
BrightFireTiger 4 years ago
The discussion was about future performance based on prior experience -- that that should be a key deciding factor.
On that basis, Seward or Douglas should have gotten the nomination over Lincoln. Period.
The key decision in the last six years that both Clinton and McCain faced -- was yea or nay on the war. That was their "hard choice."
They chose wrong. Obama opposed the war in the face of wide public support for it, a choice that could have hurt him politically.
He chose right.
prodprod 4 years ago
You're clueless about Lincoln. Period.
As for Barack, you need to read up on him a bit more too. In 2004 before the DNC, he said he didn't blame Democrats for voting for the war, conceding he wasn't privy to the same intelligence information. In other words, he knew he was just an armchair quarterback whereas McCain and Hillary were actual players on the field.
He says otherwise now shows he's merely another politician.
Your "What if?" video doesn't prove anything. Can't. It's meaningless.
BrightFireTiger 4 years ago
You claimed that Lincoln *founded* the Republican Party and led the anti-slavery Movement.
If you're as well-informed about Obama as you are about Lincoln, you're only making me more confident in my decision to vote for Obama.
Many thanks.
prodprod 4 years ago
You're a Hollywood screenwriter and your world is made of fluff. Your video represents that. Fluff. A "What if?" video that only a simpleton would find merit in. A video that says nothing for why we should vote for a candidate except that he's not the other two major candidates that had to make a hard decision in an imperfect world. But then that is your candidate. An unknown that his supporters cannot even point to anything significant that he has done except win a US Senate race. Sad.
BrightFireTiger 4 years ago
Resorting to ad hominems don't advance your cause any more than distorting history.
And McCain's whole argument for being president seems to be the same as Bob Dole's -- I was a war hero and I've been around a long time so it's my turn to be President.
It didn't fly for Dole and it's not going to fly for McCain.
And when the race is run, we'll see who's going to be the sad one.
prodprod 4 years ago
Right on target. Judgement trumps experience
shaufnm1 4 years ago
I will agree that experience informs judgement. In a world where wars are protracted guerilla wars of attrition are the norm- I place my trust in the presidential canidate who is less likely to pull the trigger too quickly and that canidate is Obama.
Secondly- when making decisions based on experience is ineffective- judgement takes over in finding a another solution. Read Kuhn's book Scientific Revolutions.
shaufnm1 3 years ago
Nice video, still no proof that Obama
will make the RIGHT DECISION. Too many other
factors to be considered
1evon50 4 years ago
What an idiotic comment. How can you prove that one candidate will make the RIGHT DECISION?
"Proof" in this context, is impossible. Rather, you have to make an educated guess based on what a person has done in the past.
ronaldinhom 4 years ago
People should watch this video and WAKE UP !
5 stars and favorited !
ilikeclip 4 years ago
awesome video! To complement it, I highly recommend The Fog Of War, a documentary on McNamara on the topic of the cold war. Great Work!
CindyPantz 4 years ago 3
I will feature you video in my channel.
You should produce more videos. This video is short and brilliant !
5 STARS.
MysteriousMaskMan 4 years ago 3