Well, yeah, the people and structures around Kennedy would never have let him do it, but there is evidence that JFK wanted to take the Cold War in a different direction. He held a naive, liberal worldview and believed that the two contradictory global powers could coexist.
‘ahaha i held the planet hostage be my friend hahah’ comic book villain shit
Are you saying that the Soviets would have never trusted Kennedy? Khrushchev was willing to deescalate. It was always the US that was the antagonist. If the Americans had extended an olive branch it would have been accepted.
evidence that JFK wanted to take the Cold War in a different direction. He held a naive, liberal worldview and believed that the two contradictory global powers could coexist
i find this utterly uncompelling. see: "willing to murder us all over cuba"
The joint chief's wanted to nuke Cuba, so Kennedy was always a moderating influence. The calamity of the Cuban Missile Crisis led to a lot of changes, including a change in Kennedy's attitude. After the crisis he began to publicly express a desire for peace.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.
Naive? Unattainable? Perhaps. But it appears to have been a sincerely held desire. We'll never know for sure because he didn't get an opportunity to effect it.
you've given me a bit to consider. maybe he meant it and was becoming a non-ghoul, but who can know for sure after he got brained. i'll admit i get a bit kneejerky against Kennedy hagiography
Well, yeah, the people and structures around Kennedy would never have let him do it, but there is evidence that JFK wanted to take the Cold War in a different direction. He held a naive, liberal worldview and believed that the two contradictory global powers could coexist.
Are you saying that the Soviets would have never trusted Kennedy? Khrushchev was willing to deescalate. It was always the US that was the antagonist. If the Americans had extended an olive branch it would have been accepted.
i find this utterly uncompelling. see: "willing to murder us all over cuba"
The joint chief's wanted to nuke Cuba, so Kennedy was always a moderating influence. The calamity of the Cuban Missile Crisis led to a lot of changes, including a change in Kennedy's attitude. After the crisis he began to publicly express a desire for peace.
Naive? Unattainable? Perhaps. But it appears to have been a sincerely held desire. We'll never know for sure because he didn't get an opportunity to effect it.
you've given me a bit to consider. maybe he meant it and was becoming a non-ghoul, but who can know for sure after he got brained. i'll admit i get a bit kneejerky against Kennedy hagiography