Our Kennedy.

[Oldstyle]

Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.

"Policy" was whatever John F. Kennedy DECIDED it was going to be. You harbor some strange concept that he was locked into a certain policy and I don't have the faintest idea how you've arrived at that conclusion. He's the President and Commander in Chief. It's totally his call.

As an example of what I'm talking about...the policy" for the Bay of Pigs invasion was air support consisting of 16 bombers to take out Cuba's air force. That was the way the "plan" was drawn up. Only at the last moment, Kennedy decided that it would be better to send 8 bombers instead of 16. Kindly explain why Kennedy is somehow "locked into" the policy to withdraw troops in 1963 but in 1960 he was free to change policy at the very last moment? It's obvious that Kennedy was NOT locked into that plan to withdraw a thousand troops and with a worsening situation in South Vietnam he very well would have sent MORE advisers rather than less.

When did Kennedy change the policy? Because 2 days before he died the plan to withdraw was still in place.

You really are showing that you are not reading a thing I have posted...

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

I'm reading what you have been posting REPEATEDLY but what you've posted hasn't convinced me that John Kennedy had any intention of a total withdrawal from South Vietnam if that meant the collapse of the country and the subsequent takeover by the communists. It goes counter to EVERYTHING that he had done in Vietnam since becoming President.

 

[Bfgrn]

The truth is...JFK escalated that conflict rather dramatically. Granted, not as much as Johnson but certainly a lot more than Eisenhower.

"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 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, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

That was John Kennedy on the day he was sworn in. You would have us believe that in two short years he essentially quit on South Vietnam? Was willing to simply hand it over to the communists? With all due respect, my liberal friend? You and your ilk are attempting to CREATE a Kennedy that never existed.

'ilk'?

Ironic, when I quote Kennedy it is merely 'rhetoric', but when you quote Kennedy it is gospel.

You make the very same mistake the ignorant neocons made. They cherry-picked the rhetoric they wanted to hear, and ignored the rest.



"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

And if a beach-head of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth is...JFK escalated that conflict rather dramatically. Granted, not as much as Johnson but certainly a lot more than Eisenhower.

"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 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, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

That was John Kennedy on the day he was sworn in. You would have us believe that in two short years he essentially quit on South Vietnam? Was willing to simply hand it over to the communists? With all due respect, my liberal friend? You and your ilk are attempting to CREATE a Kennedy that never existed.

'ilk'?

Ironic, when I quote Kennedy it is merely 'rhetoric', but when you quote Kennedy it is gospel.

You make the very same mistake the ignorant neocons made. They cherry-picked the rhetoric they wanted to hear, and ignored the rest.



"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

And if a beach-head of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."

I haven't ignored anything. I've simply pointed out Kennedy's steadfast and repeated declarations that he would resist communism's spread. What you would like me to believe is that Kennedy changed his mind on that and was willing to let South Vietnam go over to the communists. Quite frankly, I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever. What I DO see is a "plan" to withdraw troops that was made under the belief that the war was going great and that South Vietnam was now ready to assume full responsibility for "mopping up"...something that Kennedy knew full well by the Fall of 1963 was not the case. What you continually refer to as "policy" was never carried out...nor would it have been because the circumstances on the ground wouldn't allow that to take place.

 

[Oldstyle]

Foreign Affairs . JFK . WGBH American Experience | PBS

The article from PBS puts in context what Kennedy had done leading up to his assassination.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3-5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers."

And that is from the speech that Kennedy would have given on the day that he was assassinated. Does it REALLY sound like he's decided to pull out of South Vietnam and let them go under communist control?

 

[Bfgrn]

The truth is...JFK escalated that conflict rather dramatically. Granted, not as much as Johnson but certainly a lot more than Eisenhower.

"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 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, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

That was John Kennedy on the day he was sworn in. You would have us believe that in two short years he essentially quit on South Vietnam? Was willing to simply hand it over to the communists? With all due respect, my liberal friend? You and your ilk are attempting to CREATE a Kennedy that never existed.

'ilk'?

Ironic, when I quote Kennedy it is merely 'rhetoric', but when you quote Kennedy it is gospel.

You make the very same mistake the ignorant neocons made. They cherry-picked the rhetoric they wanted to hear, and ignored the rest.



"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

And if a beach-head of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."

I haven't ignored anything. I've simply pointed out Kennedy's steadfast and repeated declarations that he would resist communism's spread. What you would like me to believe is that Kennedy changed his mind on that and was willing to let South Vietnam go over to the communists. Quite frankly, I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever. What I DO see is a "plan" to withdraw troops that was made under the belief that the war was going great and that South Vietnam was now ready to assume full responsibility for "mopping up"...something that Kennedy knew full well by the Fall of 1963 was not the case. What you continually refer to as "policy" was never carried out...nor would it have been because the circumstances on the ground wouldn't allow that to take place.

Cherry picking again... neocon 'ILK"...

Herein lies your problem. Kennedy was a wise politician. He was not going to reveal his plans to withdraw until after he secured another 4 years in office. Does THIS sound like a man who was going to send 200,000 troops into Vietnam?

In the Oval Office, he admitted to Mansfield that his call for a total military withdrawal was correct. “But I can't do it until 1965—after I'm reelected.” Otherwise, there would be a “wild conservative outcry” in the election campaign that would have severe political repercussions. After Mansfield left the room, Kennedy confided his intentions to O'Donnell. “In 1965, I'll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I'll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don't care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam , we would have another Joe McCarthy Red Scare in our hands, but I can do it after I'm reelected. So we had better make damned sure I am reelected.” - See more at: History News Network | JFK Wanted Out of Vietnam

 

[Oldstyle]

When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?

I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous.

to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?

To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part. The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.

It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.

And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan". So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses? That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.

Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.

So...you ask me to provide the "policy" on Vietnam on the day that Kennedy died and I give you the transcript of the very speech Kennedy would have given that day in Dallas where he once again would have clearly stated the high level of commitment to South Vietnam that the US had. How much more "documentation" do you need as to Kennedy's mind set that October? I'm sorry but THAT speech is not the speech that a man who's about to pull all of the American troops out of South Vietnam would have given.

 

[Oldstyle]

You might want to tread carefully here, Bfgrn...

You label Kennedy a "wise politician" because (according to you) he was about to lie to the American people about what his intentions were in Vietnam just so he could get reelected.

So what you're saying is that Kennedy shouldn't be taken at his word? So does that hold true to what he told Mansfield that day in the Oval Office? You want to claim that Kennedy's words don't mean what they seem to mean because he's not honest. Your problem is that once you establish that Kennedy was a bald faced liar...you can't take what he said to anyone at face value...can you?

 

[Bfgrn]

To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part. The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.

It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.

And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan". So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses? That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.

Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.

So...you ask me to provide the "policy" on Vietnam on the day that Kennedy died and I give you the transcript of the very speech Kennedy would have given that day in Dallas where he once again would have clearly stated the high level of commitment to South Vietnam that the US had. How much more "documentation" do you need as to Kennedy's mind set that October? I'm sorry but THAT speech is not the speech that a man who's about to pull all of the American troops out of South Vietnam would have given.

Yes, I asked you to provide the 'policy' on the day he died. But you refuse, why is that? Is it because the 'policy' is just as I say it is? And you seem to have a very immature understanding of what 'policy' is and how critical 'policy' is to order, chain of command and how' 'policy' prevents chaos and even disaster.

Kennedy was less afraid of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's ordering a surprise attack than he was "that something would go wrong in a Dr. Strangelove kind of way"—with a politically unstable U.S. general snapping and launching World War III.

Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority.

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...I just gave you the speech that Kennedy would have given that day in Dallas...a speech that he CLEARLY would have stated his continuing commitment to a strategy of "containment" in South Vietnam...but you don't accept THAT! Instead you want to talk about a mythical "policy" that you for some unknown reason think is set in stone and can't be deviated from.

Then ONCE AGAIN you cite the propaganda that TIME put out that tries oh so hard to paint Kennedy as something that he quite obviously never was.

 

[Oldstyle]

The following is from a top secret memorandum from McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy's Special Assistant for National Security sent less than 24 hours before Kennedy was assassinated. Does IT sound like the US was planning on letting South Vietnam go over to the communists?

"Programs of military and economic assistance should be maintained at such levels that their magnitude and effectiveness in the eyes of the Vietnamese Government do not fall below the levels sustained by the United States in the time of the Diem Government. This does not exclude arrangements for economy on the MAP account with respect to accounting for ammunition and any other readjustments which are possible as between MAP and other U.S. defense resources. Special attention should be given to the expansion of the import distribution and effective use of fertilizer for the Delta."

That follows the earlier White House statement that you continually refer to as "proof" that Kennedy WOULD have gone through with troop reductions.

"U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM: WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963

Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society."

Your problem, Bfgrn...is that you have multiple "policies" in play here that contradict each other. Kennedy repeatedly declares that his "policy" is to support South Vietnam so as to keep the communists at bay while at the same time he declares as "policy" that the South Vietnamese are now sufficiently trained that we can begin to withdraw American "advisers". The fact of the matter is that Kennedy knows full well by October of 1963 that the appraisals he had earlier received that South Vietnam was ready to shoulder all of the fighting without aid from US forces were wildly optimistic and that the war was not going as well as the reports that had led to the formulation of the withdrawal schedule.

 

[Bfgrn]

The following is from a top secret memorandum from McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy's Special Assistant for National Security sent less than 24 hours before Kennedy was assassinated. Does IT sound like the US was planning on letting South Vietnam go over to the communists?

"Programs of military and economic assistance should be maintained at such levels that their magnitude and effectiveness in the eyes of the Vietnamese Government do not fall below the levels sustained by the United States in the time of the Diem Government. This does not exclude arrangements for economy on the MAP account with respect to accounting for ammunition and any other readjustments which are possible as between MAP and other U.S. defense resources. Special attention should be given to the expansion of the import distribution and effective use of fertilizer for the Delta."

That follows the earlier White House statement that you continually refer to as "proof" that Kennedy WOULD have gone through with troop reductions.

"U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM: WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963

Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society."

Your problem, Bfgrn...is that you have multiple "policies" in play here that contradict each other. Kennedy repeatedly declares that his "policy" is to support South Vietnam so as to keep the communists at bay while at the same time he declares as "policy" that the South Vietnamese are now sufficiently trained that we can begin to withdraw American "advisers". The fact of the matter is that Kennedy knows full well by October of 1963 that the appraisals he had earlier received that South Vietnam was ready to shoulder all of the fighting without aid from US forces were wildly optimistic and that the war was not going as well as the reports that had led to the formulation of the withdrawal schedule.

Where is a link?

You keep forgetting...on November 20, 1963 the withdrawal policy was still in place. Kennedy arrived in San Antonio at 1:30pm on Nov. 21,1963. He had less than 24 hours to live. WHEN did he change the policy?

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

 

[Oldstyle]

You keep declaring that there was an "iron clad" policy in place that the US would without question withdraw 1,000 troops that year and all of the troops by 1965, Bfgrn and for the life of me I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion. NOTHING was set in stone....

Kennedy Week: JFK?s Uncertain Path in Vietnam | The Nation

That article does a great job of pointing out the uncertainty that the Kennedy White House was operating under when it came to Vietnam. To declare that there WAS an iron clad "policy" that the troops would be pulled out by the end of 1965 is simply ignore the numerous OTHER "policies" that declared that our support of South Vietnam's fight against communist incursion from the north was unwavering.

 

[Bfgrn]

You keep declaring that there was an "iron clad" policy in place that the US would without question withdraw 1,000 troops that year and all of the troops by 1965, Bfgrn and for the life of me I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion. NOTHING was set in stone....

Kennedy Week: JFK?s Uncertain Path in Vietnam | The Nation

That article does a great job of pointing out the uncertainty that the Kennedy White House was operating under when it came to Vietnam. To declare that there WAS an iron clad "policy" that the troops would be pulled out by the end of 1965 is simply ignore the numerous OTHER "policies" that declared that our support of South Vietnam's fight against communist incursion from the north was unwavering.

You and Perlstein have a right to an opinion as to what would have happened had Kennedy lived.

But the policy the day the President was assassinated was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

And 2 days before he died, that policy was still in place.

You like to accuse people like James K. Galbraith, son of the famous Kennedy hand and economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and Robert McNamara who was Secretary of Defense of lying. But they were THERE. Who the fuck is Perlstein?

I will prove Perlstein is NOT giving both sides of the debate.

Perlstein cherry picks just like the you and the neocons did with the inaugural address.

From your article.

“President Kennedy also read much more pessimistic evaluations. These were written mostly by civilians—some by officials in the State Department, others by journalists like Malcolm Browne and David Halberstam. Kennedy did not openly commit himself to either the optimists or the pessimists.” What he did do was insist publicly that he would never cut and run. July 13, 1963: “We are not going to withdraw from that effort…. we are going to stay there.” September 2: “I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake.”

Now the REST of the story, HERE is what Perlstein left out of that same interview on Sept 2:

MR. CRONKITE. Mr. President, the only hot war we've got running at the moment is of course the one in Viet-Nam, and we have our difficulties here, quite obviously.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.

 

[Oldstyle]

You keep declaring that there was an "iron clad" policy in place that the US would without question withdraw 1,000 troops that year and all of the troops by 1965, Bfgrn and for the life of me I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion. NOTHING was set in stone....

Kennedy Week: JFK?s Uncertain Path in Vietnam | The Nation

That article does a great job of pointing out the uncertainty that the Kennedy White House was operating under when it came to Vietnam. To declare that there WAS an iron clad "policy" that the troops would be pulled out by the end of 1965 is simply ignore the numerous OTHER "policies" that declared that our support of South Vietnam's fight against communist incursion from the north was unwavering.

You and Perlstein have a right to an opinion as to what would have happened had Kennedy lived.

But the policy the day the President was assassinated was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

And 2 days before he died, that policy was still in place.

You like to accuse people like James K. Galbraith, son of the famous Kennedy hand and economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and Robert McNamara who was Secretary of Defense of lying. But they were THERE. Who the fuck is Perlstein?

I will prove Perlstein is NOT giving both sides of the debate.

Perlstein cherry picks just like the you and the neocons did with the inaugural address.

From your article.

“President Kennedy also read much more pessimistic evaluations. These were written mostly by civilians—some by officials in the State Department, others by journalists like Malcolm Browne and David Halberstam. Kennedy did not openly commit himself to either the optimists or the pessimists.” What he did do was insist publicly that he would never cut and run. July 13, 1963: “We are not going to withdraw from that effort…. we are going to stay there.” September 2: “I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake.”

Now the REST of the story, HERE is what Perlstein left out of that same interview on Sept 2:

MR. CRONKITE. Mr. President, the only hot war we've got running at the moment is of course the one in Viet-Nam, and we have our difficulties here, quite obviously.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.

Once again...context is important here...what Kennedy is talking about is the internal battle that the Catholic Diem brothers were waging against the Buddhist majority in South Vietnam. What Kennedy is referring to when he speaks about the Government getting out of touch with the people over the prior two months were Government led attacks on Buddhist monks and monasteries that resulted in thousands of deaths. Kennedy at this point has come to the realization that Diem is corrupt and incompetent and needs to be replaced for South Vietnam to have a chance at defeating the communist insurgents.

The REASON Kennedy cares about maintaining the support of the people in South Vietnam is that he is still committed to keeping the communists OUT of the South. THAT policy is still in effect when JFK is killed and THAT policy would have precluded Kennedy from withdrawing troops just as it had led him to increase troop levels from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand.

 

[Bfgrn]

You keep declaring that there was an "iron clad" policy in place that the US would without question withdraw 1,000 troops that year and all of the troops by 1965, Bfgrn and for the life of me I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion. NOTHING was set in stone....

Kennedy Week: JFK?s Uncertain Path in Vietnam | The Nation

That article does a great job of pointing out the uncertainty that the Kennedy White House was operating under when it came to Vietnam. To declare that there WAS an iron clad "policy" that the troops would be pulled out by the end of 1965 is simply ignore the numerous OTHER "policies" that declared that our support of South Vietnam's fight against communist incursion from the north was unwavering.

You and Perlstein have a right to an opinion as to what would have happened had Kennedy lived.

But the policy the day the President was assassinated was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

And 2 days before he died, that policy was still in place.

You like to accuse people like James K. Galbraith, son of the famous Kennedy hand and economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and Robert McNamara who was Secretary of Defense of lying. But they were THERE. Who the fuck is Perlstein?

I will prove Perlstein is NOT giving both sides of the debate.

Perlstein cherry picks just like the you and the neocons did with the inaugural address.

From your article.

“President Kennedy also read much more pessimistic evaluations. These were written mostly by civilians—some by officials in the State Department, others by journalists like Malcolm Browne and David Halberstam. Kennedy did not openly commit himself to either the optimists or the pessimists.” What he did do was insist publicly that he would never cut and run. July 13, 1963: “We are not going to withdraw from that effort…. we are going to stay there.” September 2: “I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake.”

Now the REST of the story, HERE is what Perlstein left out of that same interview on Sept 2:

MR. CRONKITE. Mr. President, the only hot war we've got running at the moment is of course the one in Viet-Nam, and we have our difficulties here, quite obviously.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.

Once again...context is important here...what Kennedy is talking about is the internal battle that the Catholic Diem brothers were waging against the Buddhist majority in South Vietnam. What Kennedy is referring to when he speaks about the Government getting out of touch with the people over the prior two months were Government led attacks on Buddhist monks and monasteries that resulted in thousands of deaths. Kennedy at this point has come to the realization that Diem is corrupt and incompetent and needs to be replaced for South Vietnam to have a chance at defeating the communist insurgents.

The REASON Kennedy cares about maintaining the support of the people in South Vietnam is that he is still committed to keeping the communists OUT of the South. THAT policy is still in effect when JFK is killed and THAT policy would have precluded Kennedy from withdrawing troops just as it had led him to increase troop levels from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand.

You are projecting your hawkish ignorance on JFK. You don't know the man, and you dismiss the people who knew him best, the ones who were close to him, as liars. You really haven't done anywhere near the reading and research on Jack Kennedy that I have. At EVERY turn in his presidency when confronted with the option of mass military intervention, he took a lesser route...Cuba twice, Berlin and Laos. He did increase our presence in Vietnam, but it a HUGE, GIGANTIC, VAST leap to say Kennedy would have Americanized the Vietnam war. In his second term, JFK was planning on changes in his administration. Secretary of State Dean Rusk who was a hawk would have been out and replaced with McNamara, the man Kennedy felt would and could stand up to the Joint Chiefs. Kennedy had explored the same approach he defused the Cuban Missile Crisis with...negotiations and diplomacy.

Papers reveal JFK efforts on Vietnam

By Bryan Bender
The Boston Globe

Monday, June 06, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Newly uncovered documents from both American and Polish archives show that President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Union secretly sought ways to find a diplomatic settlement to the war in Vietnam, starting three years before the United States sent combat troops.

Kennedy, relying on his ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith, planned to reach out to the North Vietnamese in April 1962 through a senior Indian diplomat, according to a secret State Department cable that was never dispatched.

Back-channel discussions also were attempted in January 1963, this time through the Polish government, which relayed the overture to Soviet leaders. New Polish records indicate Moscow was much more open than previously thought to using its influence with North Vietnam to cool a Cold War flash point.


The Galbraith I knew: His biographer recalls how the late economist warned JFK about Vietnam -- and faulted conservative policies for worsening inequality in America.

By Richard Parker

Monday, May 01, 2006

Galbraith began warning President Kennedy of the dangers Vietnam posed in the summer of 1961, before the first U.S. troops were dispatched there. Kennedy heard him, and amazingly agreed with him, but was in a sense boxed in by the near unanimity of his top advisors that Vietnam was a place where America must "take a stand." Through recently declassified State and Defense Department documents, I was able to learn just how in tune JFK was with Galbraith's warning. The two men understood that this was no mere "foreign misadventure," but could become a quagmire that would not only blow back to the United States but destabilize its economy, delegitimize the Democratic Party and ultimately destroy the confidence of the American people in government itself.

What these newly released documents make clear is that by the spring of 1963 -- after barely avoiding nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis the previous fall -- Kennedy was ready to act decisively. He ordered the Pentagon to prepare for the removal of the few thousand U.S. troops JFK had reluctantly authorized, with the final withdrawal immediately after the 1964 presidential election. Kennedy assumed he would face -- and defeat -- Sen. Barry Goldwater that fall, and didn't want to be "red-baited" by the hawkish Republican during the campaign. To make sure the Pentagon knew he was serious in his intentions, he ordered that the first troops be brought home in November 1963 -- the month he was assassinated in Dallas.

 

[Oldstyle]

Kennedy "defused" the Cuban Missile Crisis by employing an illegal military blockade of Cuba...he didn't make Nikita K. back down with diplomacy and if you think that DID take place then you need to go back and do some more reading up on the subject.

And Richard Parker needs to bone up on the subject as well! Kennedy didn't "reluctantly" send a few thousand US troops to South Vietnam...he sent an additional 15,000 troops! He also totally changed the role of the "advisers" that were in country from training, which is what they were doing under Ike, to actual combat missions. He also instigated the widespread use of both napalm, defoliation and the forced relocation of South Vietnamese villagers. Hardly the record of the "dove" that people like you are now trying to paint Kennedy as.

 

[Bfgrn]

Kennedy "defused" the Cuban Missile Crisis by employing an illegal military blockade of Cuba...he didn't make Nikita K. back down with diplomacy and if you think that DID take place then you need to go back and do some more reading up on the subject.

And Richard Parker needs to bone up on the subject as well! Kennedy didn't "reluctantly" send a few thousand US troops to South Vietnam...he sent an additional 15,000 troops! He also totally changed the role of the "advisers" that were in country from training, which is what they were doing under Ike, to actual combat missions. He also instigated the widespread use of both napalm, defoliation and the forced relocation of South Vietnamese villagers. Hardly the record of the "dove" that people like you are now trying to paint Kennedy as.

You can try to slander, deride and dismiss Kennedy as much as you want, but the FACTS remain that the blockade was the least aggressive option in a room full of blood hungry grunts who wanted to 'fry Cuba'. And it is a FACT the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. You have failed in your attempt to disprove that fact. AND it is also a FACT the vast escalation of Vietnam into an American war was on LBJ, not Kennedy.

In the very beginning I provided proof that the CIA tried to sabotage peace talks between Eisenhower and Khrushchev in 1960. It prompted Ike to issue his dark, dire military/industrial complex warning in a farewell speech that should have been all bouquets and roses.

One of the first questions LBJ asked J Edgar Hoover in a phone conversation on November 29, 1963 after Hoover said 3 shots were fired: "Any of them fired at me?"

LBJ 'heard' those shots in every foreign policy decision he made moving forward. He did not have the guts and courage that jack Kennedy had.

The Farewell Address - President Eisenhower delivered the speech on January 17, 1961.

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

 

[thanatos144]

Why is it that you progressives always act like you don't want war get your the first going to another country and killing

tapatalk post

 

[Bfgrn]

Why is it that you progressives always act like you don't want war get your the first going to another country and killing

tapatalk post

Why is it that right wingers are as deep as a puddle? Not able to follow along, 'eh?