It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
President John Kennedy (1917-63) notified Americans about the presence of the missiles, explained his decision to enact a naval blockade around Cuba and made it clear the U.S. was prepared to use military force if necessary to neutralize this perceived threat to national security. Following this news, many people feared the world was on the brink of nuclear war. However, disaster was avoided when the U.S. agreed to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s (1894-1971) offer to remove the Cuban missiles in exchange for the U.S. promising not to invade Cuba. Kennedy also secretly agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey
After the failed U.S. attempt to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs invasion,
Shortly after his inauguration, in February 1961, President Kennedy authorized the invasion plan. But he was determined to disguise U.S. support. The landing point at the Bay of Pigs was part of the deception.
originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Joecanada11
Could you be more specific on what action you are referring to?
I have to agree, patience is a virtue. Diplomacy sounds like a positive, but how can you ever get a good deal if you are perceived as weak or stupid? Do car salesmen give the good deals to all the suckers?
Cunning and ruthlessness have nothing to do with brutality. We want a leader who can execute directives the most efficient and effective way possible, not in such a way to sate some needless blood-lust.
Shortly after his inauguration, in February 1961, President Kennedy authorized the invasion plan. But he was determined to disguise U.S. support. The landing point at the Bay of Pigs was part of the deception
originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: GodEmperor
I think Barrack Obama for a third term would work out well too.
originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: GodEmperor
Yeah it's a tough call on who could end up killing the most people.
I think if you're looking for short term results then Clinton will do the most injustice to the world at large.
Trump on the other hand would probably kill more of the world in the long term.
His policies that dare to make America great again would further increase poverty and strife throughout the rest of the world, leading to eventual collapse of whole societies. This coupled with a self secure America with very secure borders would in time "starve out" the rest of the world.
Tough choices to be made.