| > > Why do you count the Cuban Missile Crisis as a negative? Considering how nothing was blown up and the Russians tore those missiles down I'd consider that a positive.|
> It's generally considered to be a failure on the part of the US/Kennedy. I'm not sure how much you know about that part of history, and I don't want to recap all of Kennedy's experience with Russia and Cuba. In effect, Russia took the missiles out of Cuba, and the US took the missiles out of Turkey (which were put there years earlier). In hindsight, we discover that Russia "played" JFK and Cuba to an extent.
> But if you compare the situation before and after, you will see that the only thing to really change was that Russia got the US to remove missiles from Turkey. So Russia didn't lose anything, but they gained something. The US didn't really gain anything.
> You also have to consider the fact that the US/JFK started the whole situation because of their attack on Cuba (Bay of Pigs). So at best you have to say that while nuclear war was averted, the showdown was caused by JFK.
I don't really know squat about that time period. But going off of what you say it seems like you're not looking at both sides. For example, you say we lost something by taking our missiles out of Turkey (an interesting fact I didn't know) but with that definition of "lost" then Russia lost something as well by taking missiles out of Cuba.
And considering that the Cold War had been going on for awhile at that point I'm not sure how much you can blame JFK.