Our Kennedy.

[Bfgrn]

And as I've said before and you've grudgingly admitted...all that was in place was a "plan" to withdraw American troops...a plan that was put in place because of overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own. You give Kennedy credit for doing something that he very likely wouldn't have done.

As my father always said...don't put too much credence in politicians "promises"...the only thing that counts is what they have DONE not what they say they WILL DO.

And you have refused 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.

Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.

And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000–300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000–200,000 Laotians were dead.

And America was a torn nation.

Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the Case–Church Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

And what did Nixon end up proposing?

Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization

Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref

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

 

[Bfgrn]

So I'm not only a Kennedy "hater" and a "warmonger"...now I'm the "master of denial, deception and hypocrisy" for pointing out that Kennedy's blockade of Cuba WAS an illegal military action?

You know what, Bfgrn? When you have to resort to hyperbole like that it announces quite loudly that you don't have an intelligent response to what I've posted.

I said that I'm FROM Massachusetts...I've lived in many different places, including Aspen, Colorado for ten years. It's a wonderful world out there...anyone who stays in one place their entire life is missing out on it.

You continue the denial, deception and hypocrisy.

Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"?

Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?

Are you going to answer my questions?

Just admit you don't know shit about how JFK really was and your the picture of a low information voter

tapatalk post

I know more about Jack Kennedy than anyone on this board. Care to debate me?

 

[thanatos144]

You continue the denial, deception and hypocrisy.

Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"?

Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?

Are you going to answer my questions?

Just admit you don't know shit about how JFK really was and your the picture of a low information voter

tapatalk post

I know more about Jack Kennedy than anyone on this board. Care to debate me?

Apparently not

tapatalk post

 

[Oldstyle]

And as I've said before and you've grudgingly admitted...all that was in place was a "plan" to withdraw American troops...a plan that was put in place because of overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own. You give Kennedy credit for doing something that he very likely wouldn't have done.

As my father always said...don't put too much credence in politicians "promises"...the only thing that counts is what they have DONE not what they say they WILL DO.

And you have refused 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.

Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.

And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000–300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000–200,000 Laotians were dead.

And America was a torn nation.

Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the Case–Church Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

And what did Nixon end up proposing?

Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization

Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref

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

If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?

Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam! The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future. Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure. You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness. When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists. It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam. At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.

Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963. Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became. Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions! Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans. The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.

 

[Bfgrn]

And as I've said before and you've grudgingly admitted...all that was in place was a "plan" to withdraw American troops...a plan that was put in place because of overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own. You give Kennedy credit for doing something that he very likely wouldn't have done.

As my father always said...don't put too much credence in politicians "promises"...the only thing that counts is what they have DONE not what they say they WILL DO.

And you have refused 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.

Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.

And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000–300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000–200,000 Laotians were dead.

And America was a torn nation.

Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the Case–Church Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

And what did Nixon end up proposing?

Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization

Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref

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

If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?

Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam! The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future. Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure. You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness. When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists. It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam. At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.

Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963. Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became. Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions! Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans. The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.

SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions.

You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?

You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.

 

[thanatos144]

And you have refused 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.

Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.

And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000–300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000–200,000 Laotians were dead.

And America was a torn nation.

Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the Case–Church Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

And what did Nixon end up proposing?

Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization

Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref

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

If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?

Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam! The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future. Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure. You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness. When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists. It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam. At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.

Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963. Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became. Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions! Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans. The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.

SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions.

You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?

You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.

He has answered you time and time again but you just ignore him personally we should just forget about it because you're never ever ever going to admit that Camelot was a fake

tapatalk post

 

[Oldstyle]

And you have refused 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.

Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.

And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000–300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000–200,000 Laotians were dead.

And America was a torn nation.

Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the Case–Church Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

And what did Nixon end up proposing?

Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization

Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref

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

If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?

Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam! The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future. Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure. You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness. When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists. It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam. At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.

Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963. Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became. Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions! Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans. The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.

SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions.

You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?

You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.

What questions are those?

About Nixon? We keep going back to the same starting point...JFK had a "plan" to withdraw troops from Vietnam but actually increased the number of troops there quite dramatically. Nixon on the other hand came into office promising to end our involvement in Vietnam and actually DID withdraw troops steadily.

I'm sorry but a "plan" that may or may not have been seen through by a President who had a reputation for being indecisive doesn't compare well to an actual accomplished fact. Kennedy planned something...Nixon accomplished it.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for what would or would not have turned the tide at the Bay of Pigs? You can't land on a beach head without control of the air and expect a favorable outcome. The air strikes to take out Castro's fighters was crucial and JFK depleted the force that was delivering those strikes by 50% at the last moment...a huge strategic blunder. Kennedy sent those men to their deaths. He either should have provided the air support that was originally called for...or he should have called off the invasion. His "waffling" on how it would look politically is what doomed the entire operation. Like anyone with half a brain wouldn't have known without question that the US was behind the invasion?

 

[MaryL]

Is there an point in all that drabble? Kennedy got us in all sorts of messes: Bay of pigs, Vietnam and had Deim (look it up) assassinated. We lost 52,000 kids for nothing. I knew some of those kids. Prestige lost. Real people gone. For imaginary causes. McNamara was like Cheney. Anyway, 1983, Regan minimized the Muslim extremist that resulted in hezbollah killing 250 American Marines . Regan sent them there to enforce the peace, like lambs to slaughter. MR. Regan then turned and ran . Remind anyone of Somalia ? Do we ever learn? Then, remember 1990? George Bush sent us in to "protect" Kuwait from Saddam husein, our otherwise friend against the nasty Iranians. Even though we knew all this about Saddam, He who had all those invisible WMD's. Verification? Sadam was the guy that gassed the Kurds, and THEN...whilst the Russian Bear invaded Afghanistan we actually helped the Mujihadeen fight the Russians. We helped bin Laden , in effect. Then we pissed him off, because our soldiers were in the Saudi holy land fighting Sadam in 1990...which lead to 9/11. Twisted mixed up garbage. I am getting to where I don’t care anymore, because I haven't a clue what "we" are anymore. I stopped voting. I don’t care anymore.

 

[Bfgrn]

If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?

Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam! The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future. Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure. You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness. When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists. It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam. At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.

Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963. Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became. Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions! Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans. The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.

SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions.

You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?

You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.

What questions are those?

About Nixon? We keep going back to the same starting point...JFK had a "plan" to withdraw troops from Vietnam but actually increased the number of troops there quite dramatically. Nixon on the other hand came into office promising to end our involvement in Vietnam and actually DID withdraw troops steadily.

I'm sorry but a "plan" that may or may not have been seen through by a President who had a reputation for being indecisive doesn't compare well to an actual accomplished fact. Kennedy planned something...Nixon accomplished it.

Well we have reached the point where you are either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it? I will make it real simple for you.

QUESTIONS:

Question #1- Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???

Question #2- So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.

Question #3- Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?

 

[Oldstyle]

SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions.

You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?

You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.

What questions are those?

About Nixon? We keep going back to the same starting point...JFK had a "plan" to withdraw troops from Vietnam but actually increased the number of troops there quite dramatically. Nixon on the other hand came into office promising to end our involvement in Vietnam and actually DID withdraw troops steadily.

I'm sorry but a "plan" that may or may not have been seen through by a President who had a reputation for being indecisive doesn't compare well to an actual accomplished fact. Kennedy planned something...Nixon accomplished it.

Well we have reached the point where you are either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it? I will make it real simple for you.

QUESTIONS:

Question #1- Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???

Question #2- So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.

Question #3- Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?

Obviously I would place a military blockade lower on a scale of military aggression compared to an all out invasion. Does that in anyway make it NOT an aggressive military action? I fail to see your point.

As for question #2? This "dove" is still the man who increased the number of US troops in South Vietnam by 16 fold, changed their primary mission from training to actual combat missions, introduced the wide spread use of napalm and Agent Orange? How do you explain how THAT man fits in any way the "dove" label that you've chosen to give him despite his actual record?

#3 What speech do I put "stock" in? What are you referring to? As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.

 

[Bfgrn]

What questions are those?

About Nixon? We keep going back to the same starting point...JFK had a "plan" to withdraw troops from Vietnam but actually increased the number of troops there quite dramatically. Nixon on the other hand came into office promising to end our involvement in Vietnam and actually DID withdraw troops steadily.

I'm sorry but a "plan" that may or may not have been seen through by a President who had a reputation for being indecisive doesn't compare well to an actual accomplished fact. Kennedy planned something...Nixon accomplished it.

Well we have reached the point where you are either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it? I will make it real simple for you.

QUESTIONS:

Question #1- Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???

Question #2- So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.

Question #3- Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?

Obviously I would place a military blockade lower on a scale of military aggression compared to an all out invasion. Does that in anyway make it NOT an aggressive military action? I fail to see your point.

As for question #2? This "dove" is still the man who increased the number of US troops in South Vietnam by 16 fold, changed their primary mission from training to actual combat missions, introduced the wide spread use of napalm and Agent Orange? How do you explain how THAT man fits in any way the "dove" label that you've chosen to give him despite his actual record?

#3 What speech do I put "stock" in? What are you referring to? As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.

First of all, going back to the Bay of Pigs, the CIA set a trap for the new President. Dulles and Bissell KNEW the invasion has ZERO chance of success even with 8 more aircraft unless Kennedy started a war and invaded Cuba. Kennedy showed he was VERY decisive. He was not going to be bullied into a war. People like you don't even consider the whole picture and what Eisenhower and Kennedy faced. I go back to Ike's dire warning about the military/industrial complex. But you seem to believe the CIA and the military are just benign institutions. Your dad should have told you that nothing is as simple as it may seem.

#1- How can you fail to see the point? ALL Kennedy's military advisers, most of his cabinet and many of the leaders in Congress supported an invasion to take out the missiles. AGAIN, Kennedy refused to start a war. He found a peaceful solution.

What we NOW know is had Kennedy listened to the hawks, numerous American cities would have been reduced to radioactive rubble. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," They were wrong. If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba would have been destroyed. And WWIII would have begun.

#2- I have already admitted Kennedy increased our troop level, but the first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. The "wide spread" use of napalm and Agent Orange also began in 1965.

#3-

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.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well we have reached the point where you are either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it? I will make it real simple for you.

QUESTIONS:

Question #1- Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???

Question #2- So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.

Question #3- Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?

Obviously I would place a military blockade lower on a scale of military aggression compared to an all out invasion. Does that in anyway make it NOT an aggressive military action? I fail to see your point.

As for question #2? This "dove" is still the man who increased the number of US troops in South Vietnam by 16 fold, changed their primary mission from training to actual combat missions, introduced the wide spread use of napalm and Agent Orange? How do you explain how THAT man fits in any way the "dove" label that you've chosen to give him despite his actual record?

#3 What speech do I put "stock" in? What are you referring to? As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.

First of all, going back to the Bay of Pigs, the CIA set a trap for the new President. Dulles and Bissell KNEW the invasion has ZERO chance of success even with 8 more aircraft unless Kennedy started a war and invaded Cuba. Kennedy showed he was VERY decisive. He was not going to be bullied into a war. People like you don't even consider the whole picture and what Eisenhower and Kennedy faced. I go back to Ike's dire warning about the military/industrial complex. But you seem to believe the CIA and the military are just benign institutions. Your dad should have told you that nothing is as simple as it may seem.

#1- How can you fail to see the point? ALL Kennedy's military advisers, most of his cabinet and many of the leaders in Congress supported an invasion to take out the missiles. AGAIN, Kennedy refused to start a war. He found a peaceful solution.

What we NOW know is had Kennedy listened to the hawks, numerous American cities would have been reduced to radioactive rubble. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," They were wrong. If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba would have been destroyed. And WWIII would have begun.

#2- I have already admitted Kennedy increased our troop level, but the first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. The "wide spread" use of napalm and Agent Orange also began in 1965.

#3-

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.

The CIA set trap for the new President? LOL Really? But Kennedy showed "decisiveness" when he allowed the invasion to go forward but with such a limited amount of air support that it was doomed before it even began? That's an inane argument even for you, Bfrgn! Kennedy should have either backed the invasion with sufficient air support to pull it off or scotched the plan altogether. His INDECISION is what led to the disaster the Bay of Pigs became.

Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba. No, they were not in any way, shape or form ready to launch.

Your contention that "combat troops" were not in Vietnam until 1965 is laughable. US troops under Kennedy were taking part in combat missions...you can LABEL them "advisers" but that doesn't make them any less combat troops. Kennedy is the one who approved the use of napalm and defoliants...Johnson simply increased that use.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A liberal supposedly kills Kennedy and now liberals want to clam him?

 

[Bfgrn]

Obviously I would place a military blockade lower on a scale of military aggression compared to an all out invasion. Does that in anyway make it NOT an aggressive military action? I fail to see your point.

As for question #2? This "dove" is still the man who increased the number of US troops in South Vietnam by 16 fold, changed their primary mission from training to actual combat missions, introduced the wide spread use of napalm and Agent Orange? How do you explain how THAT man fits in any way the "dove" label that you've chosen to give him despite his actual record?

#3 What speech do I put "stock" in? What are you referring to? As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.

First of all, going back to the Bay of Pigs, the CIA set a trap for the new President. Dulles and Bissell KNEW the invasion has ZERO chance of success even with 8 more aircraft unless Kennedy started a war and invaded Cuba. Kennedy showed he was VERY decisive. He was not going to be bullied into a war. People like you don't even consider the whole picture and what Eisenhower and Kennedy faced. I go back to Ike's dire warning about the military/industrial complex. But you seem to believe the CIA and the military are just benign institutions. Your dad should have told you that nothing is as simple as it may seem.

#1- How can you fail to see the point? ALL Kennedy's military advisers, most of his cabinet and many of the leaders in Congress supported an invasion to take out the missiles. AGAIN, Kennedy refused to start a war. He found a peaceful solution.

What we NOW know is had Kennedy listened to the hawks, numerous American cities would have been reduced to radioactive rubble. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," They were wrong. If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba would have been destroyed. And WWIII would have begun.

#2- I have already admitted Kennedy increased our troop level, but the first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. The "wide spread" use of napalm and Agent Orange also began in 1965.

#3-

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.

The CIA set trap for the new President? LOL Really? But Kennedy showed "decisiveness" when he allowed the invasion to go forward but with such a limited amount of air support that it was doomed before it even began? That's an inane argument even for you, Bfrgn! Kennedy should have either backed the invasion with sufficient air support to pull it off or scotched the plan altogether. His INDECISION is what led to the disaster the Bay of Pigs became.

Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba. No, they were not in any way, shape or form ready to launch.

Your contention that "combat troops" were not in Vietnam until 1965 is laughable. US troops under Kennedy were taking part in combat missions...you can LABEL them "advisers" but that doesn't make them any less combat troops. Kennedy is the one who approved the use of napalm and defoliants...Johnson simply increased that use.

What we now know is that the CIA task force planning the invasion had predicted that the invasion's goals unachievable without U.S. military involvement. Kennedy was never given that crucial information. Neither Dulles nor Bissell revealed that to the president. And there was one more point they failed to mention: with 200,000 troops and militia at his disposal, Castro would have no trouble disposing of 1,300 volunteers, most of whom had no battlefield experience.

The CIA believed that President Kennedy would allow the American military to intervene in Cuba on their behalf. However, the president was resolute: As much as he did not want to "abandon Cuba to the communists," he said, he would not start a fight that might end in World War III.

If that was not a trap, what would you call it?


"Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba"...REALLY? That is NOT what the Joint Chiefs told Kennedy.

National Security Archive-The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: Press Release, 11 October 2002, 5:00 PM

US intelligence never located the nuclear warheads for the Soviet missiles in Cuba during the crisis, and only 33 of what photography later showed was a total of 42 medium-range ballistic missiles.

The Cuban Missile Crisis | Arms Control Association

In early 1992, it was confirmed that Soviet forces in Cuba had, by the time the crisis broke, received tactical nuclear warheads for their artillery rockets and Il-28 bombers. Castro stated that he would have recommended their use if the US invaded despite knowing Cuba would be destroyed.

The first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. That is not opinion or speculation, it is documented history.

Tell me OS, is there ANYTHING about Kennedy you don't despise?

 

[Bfgrn]

A liberal supposedly kills Kennedy and now liberals want to clam him?

A liberal supposedly killed Kennedy?

 

[Bfgrn]

As for what would or would not have turned the tide at the Bay of Pigs? You can't land on a beach head without control of the air and expect a favorable outcome. The air strikes to take out Castro's fighters was crucial and JFK depleted the force that was delivering those strikes by 50% at the last moment...a huge strategic blunder. Kennedy sent those men to their deaths. He either should have provided the air support that was originally called for...or he should have called off the invasion. His "waffling" on how it would look politically is what doomed the entire operation. Like anyone with half a brain wouldn't have known without question that the US was behind the invasion?

Castro knew about the raid and had moved his planes out of harm's way.

 

[Oldstyle]

First of all, going back to the Bay of Pigs, the CIA set a trap for the new President. Dulles and Bissell KNEW the invasion has ZERO chance of success even with 8 more aircraft unless Kennedy started a war and invaded Cuba. Kennedy showed he was VERY decisive. He was not going to be bullied into a war. People like you don't even consider the whole picture and what Eisenhower and Kennedy faced. I go back to Ike's dire warning about the military/industrial complex. But you seem to believe the CIA and the military are just benign institutions. Your dad should have told you that nothing is as simple as it may seem.

#1- How can you fail to see the point? ALL Kennedy's military advisers, most of his cabinet and many of the leaders in Congress supported an invasion to take out the missiles. AGAIN, Kennedy refused to start a war. He found a peaceful solution.

What we NOW know is had Kennedy listened to the hawks, numerous American cities would have been reduced to radioactive rubble. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," They were wrong. If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba would have been destroyed. And WWIII would have begun.

#2- I have already admitted Kennedy increased our troop level, but the first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. The "wide spread" use of napalm and Agent Orange also began in 1965.

#3-

The CIA set trap for the new President? LOL Really? But Kennedy showed "decisiveness" when he allowed the invasion to go forward but with such a limited amount of air support that it was doomed before it even began? That's an inane argument even for you, Bfrgn! Kennedy should have either backed the invasion with sufficient air support to pull it off or scotched the plan altogether. His INDECISION is what led to the disaster the Bay of Pigs became.

Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba. No, they were not in any way, shape or form ready to launch.

Your contention that "combat troops" were not in Vietnam until 1965 is laughable. US troops under Kennedy were taking part in combat missions...you can LABEL them "advisers" but that doesn't make them any less combat troops. Kennedy is the one who approved the use of napalm and defoliants...Johnson simply increased that use.

What we now know is that the CIA task force planning the invasion had predicted that the invasion's goals unachievable without U.S. military involvement. Kennedy was never given that crucial information. Neither Dulles nor Bissell revealed that to the president. And there was one more point they failed to mention: with 200,000 troops and militia at his disposal, Castro would have no trouble disposing of 1,300 volunteers, most of whom had no battlefield experience.

The CIA believed that President Kennedy would allow the American military to intervene in Cuba on their behalf. However, the president was resolute: As much as he did not want to "abandon Cuba to the communists," he said, he would not start a fight that might end in World War III.

If that was not a trap, what would you call it?


"Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba"...REALLY? That is NOT what the Joint Chiefs told Kennedy.

National Security Archive-The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: Press Release, 11 October 2002, 5:00 PM

US intelligence never located the nuclear warheads for the Soviet missiles in Cuba during the crisis, and only 33 of what photography later showed was a total of 42 medium-range ballistic missiles.

The Cuban Missile Crisis | Arms Control Association

In early 1992, it was confirmed that Soviet forces in Cuba had, by the time the crisis broke, received tactical nuclear warheads for their artillery rockets and Il-28 bombers. Castro stated that he would have recommended their use if the US invaded despite knowing Cuba would be destroyed.

The first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. That is not opinion or speculation, it is documented history.

Tell me OS, is there ANYTHING about Kennedy you don't despise?

I'm curious...are you naive enough to believe that an "adviser" flying a combat mission somehow becomes a non-combatant simply because of the TITLE of "adviser"? Or that Green Beret units conducting combat operations against the Vietcong were "non-combatants" because THEY had the title of "advisers"? American combat troops were in Vietnam and FIGHTING in Vietnam because John F. Kennedy sent them there to do just that. Trying to maintain that Johnson was the one who introduced combat troops to the conflict and not Kennedy is laughably untrue.

 

[Oldstyle]

For starters, I have always admired John Kennedy for his courageous stand on the issue of racial injustice. I don't despise John F. Kennedy. I'm simply not ready to canonize him based on a fifty year long whitewashing of who and what he was.

 

[thanatos144]

For starters, I have always admired John Kennedy for his courageous stand on the issue of racial injustice. I don't despise John F. Kennedy. I'm simply not ready to canonize him based on a fifty year long whitewashing of who and what he was.

He stood so firm on racial justice that he voted no for civil rights

tapatalk post