Our Kennedy.

[thanatos144]

Also lets not forget having MLK arrested

tapatalk post

 

[Bfgrn]

Also lets not forget having MLK arrested

tapatalk post

???

Presidential Vote and Party Identification of African Americans, 1956-1964

As you can see, over the course of just eight years, African American support for the Republican Party practically evaporated.

How did this happen? It can be tied directly to the acts and leadership of three men: Martin Luther King, Jr., who was the leader of the Civil Rights movement; John F. Kennedy, the nation’s president from 1961 through November, 1963, when he was assassinated; and Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedy’s successor as president.

Most know who Martin Luther King, Jr, was, and probably President Kennedy as well; President Johnson, although pivotal in the passage of civil rights laws, is undoubtedly the lesser known and least revered among these three historical figures.

But they were all key players in eliminating segregation and legalized discrimination in the South.

How these three men were linked in changing the face of African American politics:

In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black America’s most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.

A swift series of moves by the state’s segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the state’s maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.

Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the state’s normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, “If there’s anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.”

It’s likely that Kennedy did not at that moment realize the political implications of that call. Ever the pragmatist, he had resisted the pleas of several aides throughout the campaign that he take bolder public stands on civil rights issues. The telephone call came because one aide caught him late at night after a hard day of campaigning and staff meetings as he was about to turn in. The aide, Harris Wofford, pitched it as just a call to calm King’s fearful spouse. Kennedy replied, “What the hell. That’s a decent thing to do. Why not? Get her on the phone.”

King was soon released, unharmed, due to a groundswell of pressure directed by blacks and whites in numerous quarters toward Georgia officials (Robert F. Kennedy himself, who was managing his brother’s campaign called the judge who sentenced King to prison). At the time, the white media paid little attention to the call, which suited the Kennedys fine. But it likely transformed the black vote. King’s father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldn’t vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

(But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: “I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is… He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. I’ve got all my votes and I’ve got a suitcase, and I’m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.”

Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats? MLK, JFK, and LBJ

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

What I am curious about is how you can continue to try to place blame on a man who was dead and no longer had any say in our policy? Had Kennedy lived, and not ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, and kept the status quo, you and I probably wouldn't be talking about Vietnam.

Mansfield and Vietnam

LBJ expanded America's involvement in Vietnam into a full-scale war. He Americanized a war Kennedy determined was the Vietnamese to win or lose.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

What I am curious about is how you can continue to try to place blame on a man who was dead and no longer had any say in our policy? Had Kennedy lived, and not ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, and kept the status quo, you and I probably wouldn't be talking about Vietnam.

Mansfield and Vietnam

LBJ expanded America's involvement in Vietnam into a full-scale war. He Americanized a war Kennedy determined was the Vietnamese to win or lose.

LOL...what the heck does all THAT have to do with your claim that US troops were not involved in combat in Vietnam until 1965, Bfrgn? That was one of the weakest attempts at trying to change the subject I've seen in some time.

Again...are you SO naive that you think simply because US troops in South Vietnam were called "advisers" by both the Eisenhower Administration and the Kennedy Administration that all they did was train the South Vietnamese? Kennedy TOTALLY changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from what they were doing under Ike.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

What I am curious about is how you can continue to try to place blame on a man who was dead and no longer had any say in our policy? Had Kennedy lived, and not ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, and kept the status quo, you and I probably wouldn't be talking about Vietnam.

Mansfield and Vietnam

LBJ expanded America's involvement in Vietnam into a full-scale war. He Americanized a war Kennedy determined was the Vietnamese to win or lose.

LOL...what the heck does all THAT have to do with your claim that US troops were not involved in combat in Vietnam until 1965, Bfrgn? That was one of the weakest attempts at trying to change the subject I've seen in some time.

Again...are you SO naive that you think simply because US troops in South Vietnam were called "advisers" by both the Eisenhower Administration and the Kennedy Administration that all they did was train the South Vietnamese? Kennedy TOTALLY changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from what they were doing under Ike.

I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?

"It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
Bill Moyers

During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki

 

[Oldstyle]

What I am curious about is how you can continue to try to place blame on a man who was dead and no longer had any say in our policy? Had Kennedy lived, and not ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, and kept the status quo, you and I probably wouldn't be talking about Vietnam.

Mansfield and Vietnam

LBJ expanded America's involvement in Vietnam into a full-scale war. He Americanized a war Kennedy determined was the Vietnamese to win or lose.

LOL...what the heck does all THAT have to do with your claim that US troops were not involved in combat in Vietnam until 1965, Bfrgn? That was one of the weakest attempts at trying to change the subject I've seen in some time.

Again...are you SO naive that you think simply because US troops in South Vietnam were called "advisers" by both the Eisenhower Administration and the Kennedy Administration that all they did was train the South Vietnamese? Kennedy TOTALLY changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from what they were doing under Ike.

I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?

"It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
Bill Moyers

During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki

Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration. Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.

 

[Bfgrn]

LOL...what the heck does all THAT have to do with your claim that US troops were not involved in combat in Vietnam until 1965, Bfrgn? That was one of the weakest attempts at trying to change the subject I've seen in some time.

Again...are you SO naive that you think simply because US troops in South Vietnam were called "advisers" by both the Eisenhower Administration and the Kennedy Administration that all they did was train the South Vietnamese? Kennedy TOTALLY changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from what they were doing under Ike.

I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?

"It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
Bill Moyers

During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki

Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration. Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.

I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.

What you continue to 'dodge' is:

If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.

When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?

When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?

You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.

 

[Oldstyle]

I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?

"It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
Bill Moyers

During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki

Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration. Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.

I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.

What you continue to 'dodge' is:

If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.

When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?

When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?

You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.

Once again...you have no idea what Kennedy WOULD have done in regards to Vietnam...you're assuming he would gone ahead with a "plan" that was formulated with bad intelligence that he had subsequently learned WAS bad. Repeatedly declaring that it was "official US policy" does not mean it would have happened. Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed. LBJ simply continued the trajectory that JFK started...just as he continued the rest of Kennedy's New Frontier programs.

 

[Oldstyle]

I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?

"It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
Bill Moyers

During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki

Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration. Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.

I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.

What you continue to 'dodge' is:

If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.

When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?

When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?

You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.

Kennedy had already escalated the conflict in Vietnam into "war"...you continue to hide behind the "advisers" label that was affixed to the 16,000 troops Kennedy had in South Vietnam...troops whose mission was drastically changed under Kennedy from the training it had been under Ike to actual combat. You STILL don't want to admit that Kennedy escalated our involvement from simple training to active combat because you KNOW that it blows your "Kennedy was really a dove!" theory right out the window!

 

[Bfgrn]

Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration. Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.

I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.

What you continue to 'dodge' is:

If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.

When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?

When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?

You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.

Once again...you have no idea what Kennedy WOULD have done in regards to Vietnam...you're assuming he would gone ahead with a "plan" that was formulated with bad intelligence that he had subsequently learned WAS bad. Repeatedly declaring that it was "official US policy" does not mean it would have happened. Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed. LBJ simply continued the trajectory that JFK started...just as he continued the rest of Kennedy's New Frontier programs.

But YOU do.

It has become perfectly clear that you are unable to be honest.

AGAIN...you have two sets of standards. Ones for me and ones for you.

#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.

Oldstyle in THIS post- "Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed."

PLEASE tell what the "official US policy" on Vietnam was the day Kennedy was violently removed for office. I expect details and facts, not opinions.

AGAIN, you continue to spell JFK with an L, a B, and a J

 

[Bfgrn]

Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration. Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.

I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.

What you continue to 'dodge' is:

If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.

When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?

When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?

You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.

Kennedy had already escalated the conflict in Vietnam into "war"...you continue to hide behind the "advisers" label that was affixed to the 16,000 troops Kennedy had in South Vietnam...troops whose mission was drastically changed under Kennedy from the training it had been under Ike to actual combat. You STILL don't want to admit that Kennedy escalated our involvement from simple training to active combat because you KNOW that it blows your "Kennedy was really a dove!" theory right out the window!

AGAIN you need to lie. I never said "Kennedy was really a dove!" I never used the word 'dove' YOU are the ONLY one who has use that word. I said Kennedy was not a 'hawk'

I don't see Kennedy as a 'dove', I see him as a man who despised war so much that it would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option. Kennedy was never in danger of catching the 'war fever' that was so septic among military advisers and some cabinet members like Dean Rusk. Kennedy was going to replace Rusk with McNamara in his second term.

 

[Oldstyle]

And yet the man you declare isn't a "hawk" increased the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand when he was killed. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" changed the mission of those US troops from training (as it was under Eisenhower) to combat missions. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved the use of both napalm and defoliants. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved an invasion of Cuba. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved a military blockade of Cuba.

You DON'T see Kennedy as a dove...but you do see him as a man who despised war so much that it would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option? What is a dove if it isn't someone for whom war would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option? Your own argument contradicts itself...

 

[Bfgrn]

And yet the man you declare isn't a "hawk" increased the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand when he was killed. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" changed the mission of those US troops from training (as it was under Eisenhower) to combat missions. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved the use of both napalm and defoliants. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved an invasion of Cuba. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved a military blockade of Cuba.

You DON'T see Kennedy as a dove...but you do see him as a man who despised war so much that it would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option? What is a dove if it isn't someone for whom war would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option? Your own argument contradicts itself...

Would a hawk as the Bay of Pigs invasion failed follow up with an air and naval invasion or refuse to start a war?

Would a hawk invade Cuba when missiles were discovered on that island, especially when the prevailing opinion was to 'fry' Cuba or chose a blockade?

Would a hawk set official US policy in Vietnam to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?

Your own argument contradicts itself...NONE of those decisions Kennedy made would be the path a 'hawk' would chose.

 

[Oldstyle]

And yet the man you declare isn't a "hawk" increased the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand when he was killed. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" changed the mission of those US troops from training (as it was under Eisenhower) to combat missions. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved the use of both napalm and defoliants. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved an invasion of Cuba. The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved a military blockade of Cuba.

You DON'T see Kennedy as a dove...but you do see him as a man who despised war so much that it would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option? What is a dove if it isn't someone for whom war would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option? Your own argument contradicts itself...

Would a hawk as the Bay of Pigs invasion failed follow up with an air and naval invasion or refuse to start a war?

Would a hawk invade Cuba when missiles were discovered on that island, especially when the prevailing opinion was to 'fry' Cuba or chose a blockade?

Would a hawk set official US policy in Vietnam to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?

Your own argument contradicts itself...NONE of those decisions Kennedy made would be the path a 'hawk' would chose.

You've just pointed out the indecisiveness that characterized so much of the Kennedy foreign policy, Bfgrn! This is a man who adopts a "plan" to draw down troop levels after increasing them dramatically in the short time he was in office. This is a man who changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from training to performing hundreds of combat missions in the place of South Vietnamese troops even as he declares that South Vietnam needed to take a larger part in the defense of their country. This is a man who makes plans to withdraw troops even as he declares repeatedly that the US will not abandon it's allies to communist control. Kennedy is neither a hawk nor a dove...because he can't make up his mind what he's doing. That's what led to the debacle that was The Bay of Pigs. Kennedy wanted to show he wasn't going to back down from the communists but he also didn't want the US to come across as a regional "bully". So he changed the battle plan at the last moment and totally FUBARED the entire thing.

 

[Oldstyle]

I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.

What you continue to 'dodge' is:

If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.

When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?

When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?

You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.

Once again...you have no idea what Kennedy WOULD have done in regards to Vietnam...you're assuming he would gone ahead with a "plan" that was formulated with bad intelligence that he had subsequently learned WAS bad. Repeatedly declaring that it was "official US policy" does not mean it would have happened. Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed. LBJ simply continued the trajectory that JFK started...just as he continued the rest of Kennedy's New Frontier programs.

But YOU do.

It has become perfectly clear that you are unable to be honest.

AGAIN...you have two sets of standards. Ones for me and ones for you.

#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.

Oldstyle in THIS post- "Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed."

PLEASE tell what the "official US policy" on Vietnam was the day Kennedy was violently removed for office. I expect details and facts, not opinions.

AGAIN, you continue to spell JFK with an L, a B, and a J

I have one standard and I think I've stated it quite a few times now...I don't hold the "words" of politicians in very high regard...what I look at is what they have DONE...not what they SAY they will do.

I bring up the content of Kennedy's speech that day in Dallas simply to point out that what a politician says or what a politician plans is very seldom what they DO! Bush I's policy was "No new taxes!" Then he raised taxes. Obama's policy was "If you like your health plan...you can keep your health plan!" Then he passed the ACA. Kennedy had a plan drawn up to withdraw a thousand troops. That does NOT mean that plan might have been amended or abandoned with evolving situations in Vietnam.

 

[Bfgrn]

Once again...you have no idea what Kennedy WOULD have done in regards to Vietnam...you're assuming he would gone ahead with a "plan" that was formulated with bad intelligence that he had subsequently learned WAS bad. Repeatedly declaring that it was "official US policy" does not mean it would have happened. Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed. LBJ simply continued the trajectory that JFK started...just as he continued the rest of Kennedy's New Frontier programs.

But YOU do.

It has become perfectly clear that you are unable to be honest.

AGAIN...you have two sets of standards. Ones for me and ones for you.

#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.

Oldstyle in THIS post- "Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed."

PLEASE tell what the "official US policy" on Vietnam was the day Kennedy was violently removed for office. I expect details and facts, not opinions.

AGAIN, you continue to spell JFK with an L, a B, and a J

I have one standard and I think I've stated it quite a few times now...I don't hold the "words" of politicians in very high regard...what I look at is what they have DONE...not what they SAY they will do.

I bring up the content of Kennedy's speech that day in Dallas simply to point out that what a politician says or what a politician plans is very seldom what they DO! Bush I's policy was "No new taxes!" Then he raised taxes. Obama's policy was "If you like your health plan...you can keep your health plan!" Then he passed the ACA. Kennedy had a plan drawn up to withdraw a thousand troops. That does NOT mean that plan might have been amended or abandoned with evolving situations in Vietnam.

I can agree, had he lived, the official policy of the United States on Vietnam may have changed under JFK, but he didn't change the plan before he died. The official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. It was Johnson, not Kennedy who changed that policy. The moment Kennedy died, Vietnam became Johnson's. And everything that followed became Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's Vietnam.

Kennedy had explored negotiations with the Soviet Union to help end the conflict in Vietnam. He had begun secret negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba. I am very confident had Kennedy lived, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a full scale war and a national tragedy.

Kennedy and Johnson were two totally different men, with totally different values and viewpoints. Kennedy didn't trust the Joint Chiefs, McNamara said Johnson wrote a "blank check" to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that turned over Vietnam to their strategists.

 

[Kosh]

The Bay of Pigs Invasion, known in Hispanic America as Invasión de Bahía de Cochinos (or Invasión de Playa Girón or Batalla de Girón), was an unsuccessful military invasion of Cuba undertaken by the CIA-sponsored paramilitary group Brigade 2506 on 17 April 1961. A counter-revolutionary military, trained and funded by the United States government's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Brigade 2506 fronted the armed wing of the Democratic Revolutionary Front (DRF) and intended to overthrow the revolutionary left wing government of Fidel Castro. Launched from Guatemala, the invading force was defeated within three days by the Cuban armed forces, under the direct command of Prime Minister Fidel Castro.

Bay of Pigs Invasion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kennedy advisors Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the "danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did."[144] By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oldstyle]

But YOU do.

It has become perfectly clear that you are unable to be honest.

AGAIN...you have two sets of standards. Ones for me and ones for you.



Oldstyle in THIS post- "Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed."

PLEASE tell what the "official US policy" on Vietnam was the day Kennedy was violently removed for office. I expect details and facts, not opinions.

AGAIN, you continue to spell JFK with an L, a B, and a J

I have one standard and I think I've stated it quite a few times now...I don't hold the "words" of politicians in very high regard...what I look at is what they have DONE...not what they SAY they will do.

I bring up the content of Kennedy's speech that day in Dallas simply to point out that what a politician says or what a politician plans is very seldom what they DO! Bush I's policy was "No new taxes!" Then he raised taxes. Obama's policy was "If you like your health plan...you can keep your health plan!" Then he passed the ACA. Kennedy had a plan drawn up to withdraw a thousand troops. That does NOT mean that plan might have been amended or abandoned with evolving situations in Vietnam.

I can agree, had he lived, the official policy of the United States on Vietnam may have changed under JFK, but he didn't change the plan before he died. The official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. It was Johnson, not Kennedy who changed that policy. The moment Kennedy died, Vietnam became Johnson's. And everything that followed became Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's Vietnam.

Kennedy had explored negotiations with the Soviet Union to help end the conflict in Vietnam. He had begun secret negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba. I am very confident had Kennedy lived, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a full scale war and a national tragedy.

Kennedy and Johnson were two totally different men, with totally different values and viewpoints. Kennedy didn't trust the Joint Chiefs, McNamara said Johnson wrote a "blank check" to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that turned over Vietnam to their strategists.

The highlighted portion of your response pretty much shoots a massive hole in your "official policy" theory, Bfgrn!

Do you agree or disagree that the official policy of the US was to contest the spread of communism? If so...then you've got conflicting "policies"! OBVIOUSLY something has to give. Kennedy can't contest the spread of communism AND walk away from South Vietnam. He may have WANTED to get us out of Vietnam (God knows it was a mess under the Diem brothers!) but that in no way means that it's definite that he WOULD have allowed an ally of ours to be defeated by the communists.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have one standard and I think I've stated it quite a few times now...I don't hold the "words" of politicians in very high regard...what I look at is what they have DONE...not what they SAY they will do.

I bring up the content of Kennedy's speech that day in Dallas simply to point out that what a politician says or what a politician plans is very seldom what they DO! Bush I's policy was "No new taxes!" Then he raised taxes. Obama's policy was "If you like your health plan...you can keep your health plan!" Then he passed the ACA. Kennedy had a plan drawn up to withdraw a thousand troops. That does NOT mean that plan might have been amended or abandoned with evolving situations in Vietnam.

I can agree, had he lived, the official policy of the United States on Vietnam may have changed under JFK, but he didn't change the plan before he died. The official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. It was Johnson, not Kennedy who changed that policy. The moment Kennedy died, Vietnam became Johnson's. And everything that followed became Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's Vietnam.

Kennedy had explored negotiations with the Soviet Union to help end the conflict in Vietnam. He had begun secret negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba. I am very confident had Kennedy lived, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a full scale war and a national tragedy.

Kennedy and Johnson were two totally different men, with totally different values and viewpoints. Kennedy didn't trust the Joint Chiefs, McNamara said Johnson wrote a "blank check" to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that turned over Vietnam to their strategists.

The highlighted portion of your response pretty much shoots a massive hole in your "official policy" theory, Bfgrn!

Do you agree or disagree that the official policy of the US was to contest the spread of communism? If so...then you've got conflicting "policies"! OBVIOUSLY something has to give. Kennedy can't contest the spread of communism AND walk away from South Vietnam. He may have WANTED to get us out of Vietnam (God knows it was a mess under the Diem brothers!) but that in no way means that it's definite that he WOULD have allowed an ally of ours to be defeated by the communists.

It doesn't shoot any holes in my contention that JFK would have never escalated Vietnam into a full blown war.

What is becoming clear is you are so insecure you are unable to accept any facts. You are drowning and refuse to grab the ring. I have proven that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was withdrawal. He was about to replace war hawk Dean Rusk as Secretary of State with McNamara, who already believed Vietnam would not end in victory.

The fact remains and will always remain that 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.

Kennedy would never make another decision in regards to Vietnam. The blame for what followed falls COMPLETELY on Lyndon Johnson.

 

[Oldstyle]

And was the official US policy on the day that Kennedy died ALSO to prevent the spread of communism? If so...kindly explain how Kennedy fulfills THAT policy if he abandons South Vietnam to the communists?

Your problem is that Kennedy DID escalate our involvement in South Vietnam from the less than a thousand US servicemen that were there exclusively to train South Vietnamese troops...to over sixteen thousand US troops that were flying hundreds of combat air missions and conducting widespread counter insurgency missions on the ground. The ONLY difference between what Johnson did and what Kennedy did were the numbers of troops Johnson sent. We weren't "officially" at war under Kennedy and we weren't "officially" at war under Johnson but we WERE in reality fighting a war under both!