Todos
← Back to Squawk list
JFK Furious Over Pan Am Concorde Order In Declassified Phone Calls (Audio)
In 1963 Pan Am's legendary Juan Trippe did something that made John F Kennedy really, really mad (airchive.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Catch 22
Bob,
Vous avez pris l'appât. Merci beaucoup.
Check your blood pressure. ð
Vous avez pris l'appât. Merci beaucoup.
Check your blood pressure. ð
Geehrter Herr, Ihre Franzosen ist ernsthaft schwach. Eher wie Ihr Verstand.
enni a szart
JFK Concorde
JFK was a clueless little rich boy whose daddy bought him the presidency with bootleg whiskey money. He's martered because he was assassinated leaving us with a corrupt Johnson. According to MM, he even sucked in bed!
This was also the beginning of an era of big unions killing good companies.
After reading other comments, wake up! I don't care what people think. Viet Nam was a LOSS. This country hasn't had a definitive victory since WW2! The Gulf of Tonkin scenario was a LIE! We keep getting into these co$tly wars for not and now we have a skyrocketing $17T accelerating DEBT.
Also, If Boeing couldn't get its sh&$ together, that's too bad. The Russian Tu-144 was a failure also. Why does this MF gov't have to have its MF hand in everything???
This country is so damn brainwashed into believing there's not enough fossil fuel that we will sabatoge almost any project. One of the Air Force One's should have been a BAC Concorde with air refueling capabilities. After all, Britain is our ally!
We could not afford Apollo & Viet Nam. So why did we continue in VN? Because for some unknown reason, the JFK, Johnson & Nixon administrations believe that sacrificing our young boys is worth pumping up the economy. The exact same thing happened with Bush 2 & now the village idiot. The guy who got a PEACE PRIZE sanctioned a military surge.
Lesson: GOV't is TOO DAMN BIG and needs to get its paws out of everything that is free enterprise. Gov't is the turd in the capitalistic punch bowl.
JFK was a clueless little rich boy whose daddy bought him the presidency with bootleg whiskey money. He's martered because he was assassinated leaving us with a corrupt Johnson. According to MM, he even sucked in bed!
This was also the beginning of an era of big unions killing good companies.
After reading other comments, wake up! I don't care what people think. Viet Nam was a LOSS. This country hasn't had a definitive victory since WW2! The Gulf of Tonkin scenario was a LIE! We keep getting into these co$tly wars for not and now we have a skyrocketing $17T accelerating DEBT.
Also, If Boeing couldn't get its sh&$ together, that's too bad. The Russian Tu-144 was a failure also. Why does this MF gov't have to have its MF hand in everything???
This country is so damn brainwashed into believing there's not enough fossil fuel that we will sabatoge almost any project. One of the Air Force One's should have been a BAC Concorde with air refueling capabilities. After all, Britain is our ally!
We could not afford Apollo & Viet Nam. So why did we continue in VN? Because for some unknown reason, the JFK, Johnson & Nixon administrations believe that sacrificing our young boys is worth pumping up the economy. The exact same thing happened with Bush 2 & now the village idiot. The guy who got a PEACE PRIZE sanctioned a military surge.
Lesson: GOV't is TOO DAMN BIG and needs to get its paws out of everything that is free enterprise. Gov't is the turd in the capitalistic punch bowl.
Your opening statement contained errors, and far as I can tell, lies throughout. Here are just some examples;
Your statement: JFK was a clueless little rich boy
Truth: He was quite well educated and regarded as quite intelligent. by everyone who dealt with him, even his political opponents. So this statement of yours could be categorized as an outright lie, certainly as a case of unsupported character assassination.
Challenge: Prove that JFK was clueless. It's not going to work just to say that you don't agree with his policies. You have to prove how he was clueless (and consequently: how you are not). You don't get to be President of the United States by being clueless. For example, I'm not a fan of George W. Bush but he wasn't clueless. I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton's either. But he wasn't clueless. Show that just because you don't like someone's policies that when you say they're clueless that they really are clueless and it's not just a personal opinion you're trying to spread around as fact.
Your statement: JFK's daddy bought him the presidency
Truth: The American people voted for him. But by your standards we agree that the influence of money on politics must be abolished. And most of the money that is being spent on politics is coming from the people you favor: big business.
Challenge: Campaign for the removal of corporation status as “legal persons”, the removal of the definition that “money is political speech”, and elimination of or meaningful limitations to campaign donations. That would end the influence of “JFK's daddy” and all other people like him.
Challenge: For you to have the guts, the decency, and the honesty to accept the challenge above. I don't think you do.
Your statement: bootleg whiskey money.
Truth: We've heard that one before. I'm not a person who likes the old man who very much, in fact I don't like him at all, but, lacking a conviction for bootlegging, the proof that he was a bootlegger is up to you. The truth is that he did have a license to distribute Scotch whiskey, becoming the exclusive agent for Dewar's and also for Gordon's Gin, among others. This was all after the repeal of prohibition. He did at times use insider information in some of his business dealings, but that was perfectly legal at the time. In fact, Joe Kennedy himself, later appointed to the SEC by Roosevelt, initiated legislation which made some of his prior acts illegal going forward. I wonder if you would ever have been so forthright.
Challenge: Identify instances of proven illegal activity on his part. Not just stories, proof. We're still waiting.
Your statement: President Johnson was corrupt.
Truth: I don't know what he did to gain office in Texas before he ran for national office in 1960. I've seen indications that his behavior was not exemplary but there is no indication that I'm aware of that would indict him as vice president or president. Back to any perceived instances of illegal activity while engaged in Texas politics, I suppose, if it were true (and I'm not denying it) a defense could be made, as it often is in such cases, that “everyone was doing it”. That's not a defense, that's an excuse. A failed excuse.
Challenge: Show that Mr. Johnson was convicted of such activity, otherwise shut your mouth. I'll even provide a little help: his biographer, Robert Caro said of him that his drive for power was uncommonly ambitious and that he paid little, if any, attention to ideology, philosophy, or principles. This should be an easy challenge for you.
Your statement: MM said he even sucked in bed.
Truth: Neither you know nor I know the truth of that statement, which in any event would be a personal judgment which cannot be verified.
Challenge: Show how your statement indicates anything that's truthful or in any way applies to whether or not JFK was a good or bad man. In other words, this is relevant to what?
Your statement: This was also the beginning of an era of big unions killing good companies.
Truth: Labor/management issues have always impacted the bottom line. There was nothing special about this particular era. When a business fails, its management likes to blame everyone - except themselves. Unions are a particular whipping boy, but the fact is that contracts are entered into voluntarily, maybe not happily, but certainly voluntarily. To enter into a agreement which causes your business to fail is a failure of management, not the union.
Challenge: Prove that prior to this time there was not a single complaint that unions had caused a business failure. We don't care if the complaints were valid or not. Just show that there was no such complaint.
Your statement: Viet Nam was a loss. No definitive victory since WWII. Gulf of Tonkin a lie.
Truth: Gulf of Tonkin a lie? I thought so at the time but it seems that whatever happened was interpreted to meet certain pre-existing political stances, something which you seem to do much of the time. I agree, the American effort in Viet Nam failed. That is a loss, particularly of all the people who were lost. As to “no definitive victory”, not so true. The conquest of North Korea was not a stated goal of that war, although I fault the Truman administration for permitting MacArthur to continue his advance across the 38th parallel if it did not have such a policy. It strikes me as being opportunistic rather than well thought out. In Viet Nam the policy eventually became one of providing help until the ARVN could handle the war by itself. This is not a viable militarily achievable goal. The U.S. military tried, but the impetus had to come from the people themselves and by and large the South Vietnamese people preferred, right or wrong, not the government in Saigon nor the foreigners who were helping prop it up. Nixon, in order to gain the presidency, appears to have interfered with the progress of peace talks while he was a candidate. Afterwards, once he was president, he prosecuted and expanded the war. In neither case, Korea or Viet Nam, was there a clear, viable definition of victory which the military could achieve. That is a political failing.
In the first Gulf War there was such a definition, it was the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. That was achieved, and President Bush (the father of the later president) called for a halt. His action was completely proper. The war was run professionally and well at both military and political levels and achieved its goals.
In the second Gulf War, run by the son, which was a war of aggression (yes, Saddam Hussein was a corrupt, murdering bully, there are many others in other countries and the U.S. hasn't attacked them), the definition of victory was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Which was accomplished. Again, Rumsfeld aside, the war was run professionally by the military, less so on the political side. But it did accomplish it goals.
In Afghanistan, another war run by the son, the American response was legitimate, an attack on a government which knowingly had provided assistance to al Qaida for it attacks on America. The military succeeded in driving the Taliban from office and forcing al Qaida to relocate.
So your claim that there have been no definitive victories since WWII is seen as quite untrue, and personally, I think it's a deliberate untruth on your part.
But to continue: In both Iraq and Afghanistan “nation building” efforts have failed miserably. In one short sentence the major reason is that there really are no such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan. They are collections of people with differing religious and ethnic backgrounds forced to live within boundaries that were drawn by other people from other countries with interests other than those of the inhabitants in mind.
Challenge: Make a statement that is actually factual.
Your statement: skyrocketing debt.
Truth: The budget was balanced by the end of the Clinton administration. Since then two wars, one of them justified as far as the military response was concerned, and the economic downfalls in and around 2006- 2008 have impacted this greatly.
Challenge: Provide a reasonable scenario for relief, not one that is politically skewed to your sentiments nor one to the other side. Become a statesman or stateswoman, produce a solution which is a solution yet one in which everyone gains and loses.
Your statement: Why does this MF gov't, etc., have it's hand in everything?
Truth: It doesn't have its hand in everythig.
Challenge: Remove the cussing from your pathetic diatribes. Using “MF” proves that you're a gutless bore.
Your statement: brainwashing about fossil fuels
Truth: Fossil fuels are constantly being produced, unfortunately they take millions of year to produce and our consumption exceeds the rate of replenishment. That last part is what is non-renewable in this context.
Challenge: Tell the truth.
Your statement: One Air Force one should have been a Concorde
Truth: There are, for many reasons dealing, among others, with backup and security, at least two Air Force Ones. To have only one would be a security violation. So you would need at least two.
Challenge: Show just exactly what Britain being an ally has to do with the type of aircraft flown as Air Force One, and, keep in mind: the name “Concorde” was chosen because it was a collaborative effort between two countries.
Challenge: You've only named one of the countries which developed the Concorde. Name the other. My thinking is you have neither the guts nor the honesty.
Statement: Government needs to get its paws out of everything that is free enterprise.
Truth: Laissez-faire capitalism, which is what you're proposing, was the cause of revolutionary unrest across America and Europe throughout the 19th and into the 20th centuries. Now you're going to say, see this person is against capitalism. No, I'm not. I'm profiting from it. But untrammeled capitalism produces rioting, death, and violent overthrow of governments. It is fair to say that it was a primary cause of the Russian revolution. In Europe, rioting and revolt flashed across the continent, not just in 1848, but throughout the century. The English aristocracy, to its credit, recognized the problem and reformed, ended laissez-faire capitalism, and avoiding revolution. In some cases it seems the reform went too far, but on the whole, it's been very successful.
Challenge: Read your history without prejudice. No one here said that capitalism of and by itself is bad or evil. It isn't. But it needs to be tempered. Karl Marx grew up in and personally benefitted from laissex-faire capitalism, but recognized its dangers and evils and wrote Das Kapital in response. It wasn't a good response. Marx, for all his research, knew little that was useful about history or economics and especially failed in his understanding of what motivates humans. He knew much more than you do but his knowledge was, in the end, much more harmful than good (and whatever good he might have produced was betrayed by Lenin and Stalin). And that leaves you personally very little room to squirm around in.
General challenge to you: Prove that any of this has anything to do with Juan Trippe which is what the original article was about in the first place.
So yes, DOPE, the truth does hurt: you.
Good bye and good luck.