"The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word "crisis". One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger-but recognize the opportunity."
Speech in Indianapolis, Indiana (12 April 1959)
"A man does what he must — in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers, and pressures — and that is the basis of all human morality."
Profiles in Courage (1956)
"I can assure you that every degree of mind and spirit that I possess will be devoted to the long-range interests of the United States and to the cause of freedom around the world."
Acceptance speech 9 November 1960
2007-09-24
19:01:36
·
20 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are; but it is one of the most consistent with our character and our courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high — but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and this is the path of surrender or submission. Our goal is not victory of might but the vindication of right — not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved. Thank you, and good night.
Cuban Missile Crisis speech 22 October 1962
Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.
2007-09-24
19:03:01 ·
update #1
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
2007-09-24
19:04:02 ·
update #2
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it — and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
2007-09-24
19:05:52 ·
update #3
Terror is not a new weapon. Throughout history it has been used by those who could not prevail, either by persuasion or example. But inevitably they fail, either because men are not afraid to die for a life worth living, or because the terrorists themselves came to realize that free men cannot be frightened by threats, and that aggression would meet its own response. And it is in the light of that history that every nation today should know, be he friend or foe, that the United States has both the will and the weapons to join free men in standing up to their responsibilities.
2007-09-24
19:07:07 ·
update #4
Oh not again!
2007-09-24 19:05:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Kennedy was just trying to put pressure on Diem to make him do what he was told. He NEVER had any intention of withdrawing the American advisers from Vietnam. Diem was nobodies puppet, and JFKs bluff failed. So, he and his civilian advisers decided to promote a coup by the ARVN's generals to replace Diem with someone who would do what he was told. That turned into a disaster in which Diem and his brother were assassinated and the country of South Vietnam had a rotating government for the next two years just at a time when they were facing North Vietnamese troops being infiltrated into South Vietnam and needed stability, not a game of musical chairs for leadership. Kennedy himself was assassinated shortly after the coup and Johnson inherited JFK's botched attempt to put a real puppet in power.
2016-05-17 23:56:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
JFK had the fore site to see the need for special troops, such as the Army Special Forces, Navy SEALS, and other special operations forces. He saw it, as a result of the changes in tactics used primarily by the Communist countries and Communist backed insurgency's of the time. He saw, for example, that terrorism was a major threat. He also saw the need of the Army Special Forces and other specialized trainers to teach other countries that they could not depend on the USA to bail them out. He saw the need for us to train smaller countries, so that they could have their sovereignty when they could defend themselves when invaded. Even though I am opposed to the war in Iraq, I believe that he would have invaded and would have stayed as long as it took to stabilize that country. I think that JFK was a good president. However, he was not a very good naval officer. I mean, after all, how many PT boats were rammed by enemy ships during WW II?
2007-09-24 19:12:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by ProLife Liberal 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
JFK would congratulate Bush from taking a play directly out of his playbook... But at least Bush didn't cancel an invasion at the last second, leaving promised allies to die. (Bay of Pigs) As for the Iranian President, I doubt relations would be friendly between the two.Kennedy probably would have avoided letting him into the country. The cold war mentality would have made him suspicious of any major leader from a country that doesn't support democracy visiting his country.
2007-09-24 19:07:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by scorch_22 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
Considering what he did to Cuba and the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis, I would say he would give Iran one chance to prove they were disarming and if they weren't, well you get the rest I'm sure.
2007-09-24 19:06:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Not much now, but in his dayhe would of responded with vigor, and likly would have gone eyeball to eyeball with the tyrant, and told him stick to the UN and go home and build a shelter as if he doesn't disarm we will disarm him
2007-09-24 22:23:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I seriously doubt anyone can know the words JFK would use. His was the voice of the last president who had the the talent of speaking with eloquence.
JFK was a man of vision, courage and personal heroism. It saddens me very much to see that there are no leaders currently in any party that are a tenth his equal or the could hope to have enough brilliance to dim one small corner of his shadow.
2007-09-24 19:11:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
When the "official government" of Afganistan at the time said no to the US coming in and getting al queda (Taliban) I believe its possible Kabul would have been mushroomed rather then invaded.
2007-09-24 19:19:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by netjr 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
A lot of what he'd be saying, he'd be saying behind closed doors and in this day and age, he would probably be saying it to Blackwater.
You know, point out a few high buildings, things like that....
2007-09-24 19:41:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by wider scope 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
JFK would not have used any of those quotes to invade ANY nation under false pretenses. The difference between the issues and problems we CLEARLY faced against Cuba and Russia, and the alleged problems we suppsoedly faced in our need to invade Iraq, are the size of the Grand Canyon.
JFK's word's had true honor and mature integrity behind them. Unlike a college frat boy telling an enemy who just killed over 3000 of our innocent civilians, to "bring it on". (They already brought it on)
2007-09-24 19:13:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Not sure what he would say, but we might have another Bay of Pigs on our hands, the scenarios are vary similar, both Cuba and Iran have dictators we want ousted.
2007-09-24 19:07:12
·
answer #11
·
answered by Tommy H 5
·
1⤊
2⤋