2007-12-27 15:54:12 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This is a damn good question. This is what Yahoo! Answers is for!
He would of not responded in the manner of the current United States Administration. It was the Cold War, and any type of attack on a country that was supported by the Soviets would have placed massive strain on US-Soviet relations (Bay of Pigs), and possibly risked a nuclear exchange.
The possibilities would have been endless, he would only be able to act within the guidelines on deterrence though, which is the only thing I can say for sure would have happend. What he would have done is anyones guess. JFK belieived in diplomacy, something that is lost in the dark days of today's global political environment
2007-12-28 03:15:37 · answer #1 · answered by skullpicker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is there a section on Yahoo!Answers for seers and and astrologers? Who really f-ing knows? Let's pretend he'd be rational, but it's anybody's guess. Was he well-invested in defence contracts like the Bushes? I think the reasons for our current wars are summed up in that little tidbit of information. Kennedy was a proponent of peace, and he never inspired such hatred among Saudis. I seriously doubt such an event would have happened under his watch. Bush Sr. & Clinton pissed off the middle east in general, so it's hard to say what would happened if JFK had succeeded them. If the same events had transpired with Kennedy in command, I like to think that he would have begged the nation's patience while he used our intelligence and military apparati to apprehend the criminals responsible. It's a different world. He was a Cold War president. Things are different now.
2007-12-28 00:11:09 · answer #2 · answered by mick t 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who knows? JFK said "...Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!..." He understood where individual responsibility should begin and the nanny state should end. He understood the role of government and its primary purpose of defending this country. He would have reacted strongly.
The Democrats and liberals of today don't even come close to understanding the meaning of that statement. The Democrats are the party of parasites.
2007-12-28 00:00:23 · answer #3 · answered by Return of Bite My Shiny Metal... 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He would have hunted down Bin Ladin and all of the known and unknown friends and associates of the 19 killers and the one who was in jail and couldn't participate. They would all be dead and we would not be creating hatred for the US by an illegal, immoral war.
2007-12-27 23:59:50 · answer #4 · answered by toetagme 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We'd be in Afghanistan chasing Bin Laden.
2007-12-28 00:05:23 · answer #5 · answered by John W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would take a lot of needed vacation time to spend the $ he is making on halliburton stock
2007-12-28 00:23:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
By attacking their bases in Afghanistan, NOT by invading Iraq that had nothing to do with it, and with a comprehensive program to win hearts and minds in the Muslim world, instead of ticking them off.
2007-12-27 23:59:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
the same way Lenin would have responded to the breakup of the Soviet Union.....and gasped "the most certain thing in global politics is the uncertainty in it?"
2007-12-28 00:46:06 · answer #8 · answered by Karl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in a Bay of Pigs sorta fashion.
2007-12-28 00:01:41 · answer #9 · answered by wigginsray 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably pursued Bin Laden relentlessly until we found him and brought him to justice.
2007-12-27 23:56:50 · answer #10 · answered by mmatthews000 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋