Our Kennedy.

[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.

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.

Oh, for God's sake! Where did I ever "slander" Kennedy? I simply pointed out what he DID. Not what he told someone he'd LIKE to do! Not what his acolytes decided years later that they would like to believe he WOULD have done! I simply pointed out what he DID!

You keep blathering on about US "policy" in regards to South Vietnam. Please show me where official US policy changed to call for an abandonment of the South? Where is THAT policy spelled out?

I can show you where Kennedy REPEATEDLY asserts his determination to stop the spread on communism and support those countries under assault FROM communism and especially South Vietnam from communism. But THAT policy doesn't jibe with your belief that Kennedy would have gotten us out of Vietnam...does it? So you avert your eyes and totally ignore THAT policy!

 

[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.

Oh, for God's sake! Where did I ever "slander" Kennedy? I simply pointed out what he DID. Not what he told someone he'd LIKE to do! Not what his acolytes decided years later that they would like to believe he WOULD have done! I simply pointed out what he DID!

You keep blathering on about US "policy" in regards to South Vietnam. Please show me where official US policy changed to call for an abandonment of the South? Where is THAT policy spelled out?

I can show you where Kennedy REPEATEDLY asserts his determination to stop the spread on communism and support those countries under assault FROM communism and especially South Vietnam from communism. But THAT policy doesn't jibe with your belief that Kennedy would have gotten us out of Vietnam...does it? So you avert your eyes and totally ignore THAT policy!

You are most definitely slandering Kennedy. You are attributing what happened AFTER he was dead to him and not the man who changed policy...LBJ. 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.

You have proven one thing; you will continue to project what you believe Kennedy WOULD have done. I have proven what JFK DID. He set and signed official US policy on Vietnam; withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965...and only 2 days before his assassination it was reiterated.


And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Oldstyle]

What Kennedy DID was increase the number of troops in Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand in the three short years he was in office! What Kennedy DID was totally change the mission of those additional troops from the training that they were doing under Eisenhower to having them flying the bulk of combat air missions! What Kennedy DID was introduce widespread use of napalm! What Kennedy DID was introduce the use of Agent Orange in his "defoliation" program! What Kennedy DID was start forced relocation of peasants!

Those are the FACTS about what John F. Kennedy DID in Vietnam! His actions set the blueprint for everything that followed.

I'm still waiting for your proof that US policy had changed as to the support that South Vietnam would be receiving. The "plan" that you naively think was policy set in stone by Kennedy was simply that...a plan. A plan that was referred to by one of Kennedy's own cabinet members as a "pipe dream". A plan that was drawn up because Kennedy was receiving assurances that the war in Vietnam was succeeding wonderfully and all that was left was a "mop up" operation that could be handled by the South Vietnamese. So what happened between when that plan was commissioned and when Kennedy was assassinated? For starters, the leadership of South Vietnam. Both Diem brothers were dead from a coup backed by Kennedy. Also the rosy predictions of imminent victory had been replaced by more realistic appraisals of what we were facing in Vietnam. Put quite simply...THERE IS NO WAY THAT KENNEDY WITHDRAWS US TROOPS FROM SOUTH VIETNAM AT THAT JUNCTURE WITHOUT THE SOUTH FALLING TO THE COMMUNISTS AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT HE IS GOING TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN!

 

[Oldstyle]

And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given THAT VERY DAY in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.

 

[Bfgrn]

What Kennedy DID was increase the number of troops in Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand in the three short years he was in office! What Kennedy DID was totally change the mission of those additional troops from the training that they were doing under Eisenhower to having them flying the bulk of combat air missions! What Kennedy DID was introduce widespread use of napalm! What Kennedy DID was introduce the use of Agent Orange in his "defoliation" program! What Kennedy DID was start forced relocation of peasants!

Those are the FACTS about what John F. Kennedy DID in Vietnam! His actions set the blueprint for everything that followed.

I'm still waiting for your proof that US policy had changed as to the support that South Vietnam would be receiving. The "plan" that you naively think was policy set in stone by Kennedy was simply that...a plan. A plan that was referred to by one of Kennedy's own cabinet members as a "pipe dream". A plan that was drawn up because Kennedy was receiving assurances that the war in Vietnam was succeeding wonderfully and all that was left was a "mop up" operation that could be handled by the South Vietnamese. So what happened between when that plan was commissioned and when Kennedy was assassinated? For starters, the leadership of South Vietnam. Both Diem brothers were dead from a coup backed by Kennedy. Also the rosy predictions of imminent victory had been replaced by more realistic appraisals of what we were facing in Vietnam. Put quite simply...THERE IS NO WAY THAT KENNEDY WITHDRAWS US TROOPS FROM SOUTH VIETNAM AT THAT JUNCTURE WITHOUT THE SOUTH FALLING TO THE COMMUNISTS AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT HE IS GOING TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN!

I have already admitted that Kennedy escalated our involvement in Vietnam. But you refuse to admit that the 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 don't believe official documents, you don't believe the Secretary of Defense, you don't believe President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, you don't believe ANY author who doesn't conform to YOUR unfounded beliefs of what would have happened had Kennedy lived.

We now know that you spell John F. Kennedy; Lyndon B. Johnson.

Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."
Robert McNamara

"Professor Galbraith is correct that “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died."
Francis Bator-President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser

 

[Bfgrn]

And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given THAT VERY DAY in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.

And I have shown that Kennedy did not make the withdrawal plan public until he was re-elected.

 

[Papageorgio]

Bobby Kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from Vietnam.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bobby Kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from Vietnam.

JFK is on record saying he won't pull out of Vietnam! He was giving a speech in Dallas the day he was assassinated that once again stated that clearly. That doesn't matter to Bfgrn because he chooses to ignore EVERYTHING but the "plan" because he thinks planning to do something is the same thing as actually doing it!

 

[thanatos144]

Bobby Kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from Vietnam.

Because a Kennedy wouldn't lie? Lol

tapatalk post

 

[Oldstyle]

And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given THAT VERY DAY in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.

And I have shown that Kennedy did not make the withdrawal plan public until he was re-elected.

What you have REALLY shown is that Kennedy can't be taken at his word. He's willing to lie to get reelected. So if he's so willing to lie? Why do you accept so willingly that he's being honest about going through with the troop withdrawals? He assured the Cuban ex-pats who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs that they would have air support to take out the Cuban air force only to change his mind at the last moment and cancel half of the planes assigned for that task. Why are you so convinced that he wouldn't have done the EXACT same thing in Vietnam if he was faced with the very real prospect of the South falling to the communists as a result of his pulling out the troops?

 

[Bfgrn]

bobby kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from vietnam.

lie

 

[Papageorgio]

bobby kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from vietnam.

lie

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

FTI:
Martin:
It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
Kennedy:
Yes.
Martin:
. . . and couldn't lose it.
Kennedy:
Yes.


Oops, I guess you don't know history.

 

[Oldstyle]

He only knows a certain "version" of it...

 

[thanatos144]

He only knows a certain "version" of it...

Yep. Kennedy is a democrat saint. Obama is messiah and Lincoln was a great democrat lol

tapatalk post

 

[Bfgrn]

bobby kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from vietnam.

lie

Was John Kennedy Going to Pull Out of Vietnam?

FTI:
Martin:
It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
Kennedy:
Yes.
Martin:
. . . and couldn't lose it.
Kennedy:
Yes.


Oops, I guess you don't know history.

Funny, you left out this part...

Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
No.

Martin:
But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .

Kennedy:
No . . .

Martin:
. . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?

Kennedy:
Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

 

[Papageorgio]

lie

Was John Kennedy Going to Pull Out of Vietnam?

FTI:
Martin:
It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
Kennedy:
Yes.
Martin:
. . . and couldn't lose it.
Kennedy:
Yes.


Oops, I guess you don't know history.

Funny, you left out this part...

Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
No.

Martin:
But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .

Kennedy:
No . . .

Martin:
. . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?

Kennedy:
Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

And if they were going to use land troops or air troops, it had not been decided. Sounds like he wasn't ready to withdraw.

 

[Bfgrn]

And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given THAT VERY DAY in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.

And I have shown that Kennedy did not make the withdrawal plan public until he was re-elected.

What you have REALLY shown is that Kennedy can't be taken at his word. He's willing to lie to get reelected. So if he's so willing to lie? Why do you accept so willingly that he's being honest about going through with the troop withdrawals? He assured the Cuban ex-pats who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs that they would have air support to take out the Cuban air force only to change his mind at the last moment and cancel half of the planes assigned for that task. Why are you so convinced that he wouldn't have done the EXACT same thing in Vietnam if he was faced with the very real prospect of the South falling to the communists as a result of his pulling out the troops?

Kennedy wasn't going to give right wing hawks any ammo for the '64 election. This was a speech in southern DALLAS Texas, a conservative bastion. It was a fund raising luncheon of wealthy businessmen in the heart of the space program.

There is nothing in that speech that is says he would send in 200,000 American soldiers into Vietnam and 60,000 of them to their deaths. And there are some shots taken in that speech that I surmise were directed at the Joint Chiefs and the hawks he had to fend off almost daily. It reminds me of what he said during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis to Ken O'Donnell about the Joint Chiefs only soultion to ever problem...if we do what they want us to do, no one will be alive to tell them they were wrong.

Trade Mart speech

"This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason -- or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.

There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternative, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable."

And here is how he would have ended that speech:

"The strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions -- it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations -- it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.

We, in this country, in this generation, are -- by destiny rather than by choice -- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain."

 

[Bfgrn]

Was John Kennedy Going to Pull Out of Vietnam?

FTI:
Martin:
It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
Kennedy:
Yes.
Martin:
. . . and couldn't lose it.
Kennedy:
Yes.


Oops, I guess you don't know history.

Funny, you left out this part...

Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
No.

Martin:
But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .

Kennedy:
No . . .

Martin:
. . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?

Kennedy:
Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

And if they were going to use land troops or air troops, it had not been decided. Sounds like he wasn't ready to withdraw.

RFK is saying they WOULDN'T Americanize the war as LBJ did.

 

[Papageorgio]

Funny, you left out this part...

Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
No.

Martin:
But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .

Kennedy:
No . . .

Martin:
. . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?

Kennedy:
Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

And if they were going to use land troops or air troops, it had not been decided. Sounds like he wasn't ready to withdraw.

RFK is saying they WOULDN'T Americanize the war as LBJ did.

He said Kennedy was not going to pull out or lose the war. Spin it, but he wasn't ready to withdraw and give up. He was staying.

 

[Bfgrn]

And if they were going to use land troops or air troops, it had not been decided. Sounds like he wasn't ready to withdraw.

RFK is saying they WOULDN'T Americanize the war as LBJ did.

He said Kennedy was not going to pull out or lose the war. Spin it, but he wasn't ready to withdraw and give up. He was staying.

President Kennedy said he wouldn't withdraw, even though the policy of the United States was to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. AND, he instructed his administration to keep that policy from the public until after the 1964 election.

On April 30, 1964, Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States. Which means he was an official member of the Johnson administration. He would still be constrained by any directive from LBJ, AND the 1964 election was still 7 months away.

Had President Kennedy lived, is it possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy? Yes, but it does not mean that he would have ever committed 200,000 troops, Americanize the war and send almost 60,000 young men to their demise.