03-06-2014, 07:10 PM
Scott Kaiser Wrote:I had a long thought-out answer on how I would want to intelligently respond to Mr. Josephs remarks, I now have no need, Mr. Phipps, did just that.
I whole heartedly agree with Mr. Phipps when he says, "I feel quite certain that the real "plan" at the policy level allowed for both success or failure, and the planners would derive some benefit from either possibility."
I further agree with him when he says, "As far as the Bay of Pigs goes, it appears to me that, whether or not it was "designed" to fail, that it actually came fairly close to a "military success".
I don't believe that a plan is deliberately "designed" by anyone to fail, but in this case, it did.
I also believe, although, a few here may know exactly what I'm talking about, other's would much rather argue the case. And, I get it, but ask yourself, is it worth arguing over something that is really not the case?
I'm not talking about what part of the "plan" could've or would've been successful, that part of the conversation I was dug into. My point has always been that a plan is NOT deliberately "designed" to fail. I truly hope that Mr. Josephs understands what it is I'm trying to say without reverting back into time 5,000 years ago.
Quote:a plan is NOT deliberately "designed" to fail.
Unless, that person(s) are complete dumb ass-ets. Or, there is truly an anterior motive for the plan to fail. But, it the case of the Bay of Pigs, this plan was NOT deliberately "designed" for failure. And, I'm sure President Eisenhower would have disagreed, who knows, perhaps, if Nixon would have won the elections, would he have used the military to oust Castro from Cuba, something the world will never know.