Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Corrections, corrections
[Read the article: Better to be Hamlet than President George]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]tomreedtoon wrote:
"Remember that Kennedy had begun the incursion into Vietnam, he played a dangerous game of chicken against the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis"
Wrong, and wronger.
JFK did not "begin" the Vietnam incursion, Ike did. FYI, the de facto go-ahead for involvement(including "assistants", "advisors") was actually conveyed in a John Foster Dulles memo on Jan. 14, 1954- wherein he expressed his fear that the French fight against the VietMinh ('Vietnamese Independence League') would soon collapse. This provided the cover basis to begin sending military advisors there. Moreover, as Col. Fletcher Prouty has noted(JFK, The CIA and VietNam, 1992, p. 54) we had been aiding the French from 1946 right up to their defeat at Dien Bien Phu.
In 1954, as Prouty notes, the U.S. "took the initiative to install Ngo Dinh Diem as president of the newly established country of South Vietnam".
This despite the fact he had "no congress, no police, no tax system - nothing that is essential to the existence of a nation."
Re: the Cuban Missile crisis, JFK actually led a calibrated response designed to avoid precipitate action, unlike the JCS which wanted all out invasion, and war.
Kennedy rebuffed the JCS and their demand for use of force that would have assured U.S. conquest of Cuba but led to a nuclear war.(cf. The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 26, 1996, 'Bomb Cuba! Le May Urged JFK', p. 2A). According to this article:
Tapes of secretly recorded White House conversations released this week show that President John F. Kennedy's military advisers strongly pressured him to bomb and invade Cuba during the missile crisis 34 years ago this
month. Indeed, they forecast that war would occur whether he invaded Cuba or not.
Blasting Kennedy's cautious approach, the Air Force Chief, Gen. Curtis LeMay, told the President at a White House meeting on Oct. 19, 1962, "This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich."
--snip--
Through those days Kennedy was fending off strong pressure for an attack on Cuba from congressional and military leaders such as LeMay, who told him: 'We don't have any choice but direct military action...I see no other solution...'"
Had JFK not cut LeMay and his gang off at the pass, we wouldn't be having this discussion - as the world as we knew it would have been reduced to cinders.
JFK played no games of "chicken". He DID pull the plug on the JCS and what they were demanding, which was definitely no "game"!
-
You betcha!
[Read the article: Bad news dad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymous wrote:
" laughed my a** off at this article. My husband did too. I knew not having kids was the right decision. :) "
Same here. We decided from the outset -no kiddies.
No. 1, after the cute phase wears off, they are major pests and parasites. Latest estimates show at least $350 k is needed (per kid) to get the little beast through college.
No. 2: the planet is already overpopulated, especially by enormous carbon footprint-making, resource guzzling critters from the US of A. We need more kids like so many holes in the head.
No. 3: the US of A is already an absurdly child-centered society, where the kiddie reigns. When he says "want it!" both mommie and daddy are ready to oblige, whether its the latest brand of sneakers, a new iPod, video game or Barbie.
In no other nation that I've been to have kids been allowed to call so many shots.
As Isaac Asimov wrote in an essay in his book, The Stars in Their Courses:
Today it is the woman who declines to have children and overburden the planet who is the real heroine. She deserves the commendations and kudos/
-
Answers-whether you wan't 'em or not
[Read the article: Bad news dad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]cheryl asked (after berating the comments of the child-free and enlightened set):
If you were so comfortable with your decision, a) why do you obsessively read every Salon article about kids and parents,
Errrr......we - or at least I, don 't. This is the first one I ever read and responded to. Check my letters list!
and b) consistently contribute vitriolic, defensive, judgmental responses about parenting (which you know, excuse me while I spit Coke out of my nose laughing, NOTHING about)?
First of all, "vitriol" is in the eye of the beholder. What some treacle-inclined folks may call "vitriol" many of us call "candor" and frank insight. Saying the things in this child dominated society that none of the breeders seem to want to say.
Also, it isn't accurate to assume we know "NOTHING" about parenting, since many of us may have had at least the ersatz experience. I did. In the late 80s, with two older teen girls (under the American Field Service program) living with the wife and me. It was pure, unadulterated HELL!
The endles selfish pursuits, the whining the refusal of responsibility, the vapid consumption.....was all too much. Oh, and we won't go into all the dirty diapers I helped change for my brother's kid back in the early 70s.
So spit your coke up your nose all you want, but don't hand me that malarkey that we don't "know" what we're talking about.
Kids are largely self-centered pests and nuisances. Occasionally, yes, one may come along that will truly warm the cockles of the parental heart. But those are the exceptions, not the rule. Most are useless, planetary plundering parasites for whom retroactive abortions might be the best options.
Oh, and btw, any moron that truly thinks any of these parasites will be there to help out in the infirm old age - is really living in looney land. The only thing they will help with is in parting you with your assets. The faster the better.