So the guys in my unit shipped over there on their own? How could this be possible? I saw their orders and they sure looked genuine.
So the guys in my unit shipped over there on their own? How could this be possible? I saw their orders and they sure looked genuine.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with Common Courtesy, Kennedy started the fatal escalation in Vietnam even though it was LBJ that blindly kept committing and then using ever more troops.
And now we will never know if Kennedy would have cut his losses or not in Vietnam. But the Kennedy part of the blame for Vietnam can't be excused away. Nor can Truman's and Eisenhower's.
While success has many fathers, Failure is seldom an orphan.
Where did you come up with that? Of course the orders were genuine. Kennedy increased the number of what were called advisors, while drawing the line at combat troops.
The casualty lists show that 'advisors' were not exactly sitting in classrooms advising, but there was a huge difference between his limited support and combat troops.
In 1962, there were 30 Americans killed; later, there were over 58,000.
Lemon Law, with all due respert, you are ill-informed on this issue. Kennedy was far more a brake on the race to major war than he was an escalator by having 16,000 'advisors'.
It wasn't LBJ who just "kept committing" more troops, it was LBJ who made the major committment and introduced the first combat troops, quickly several hundred thousand.
You say we will 'never know if Kennedy would habe cut is losses', but there's a lot I have little doubt you don't know about the issue. I've spent years researching it, and there's a lot of information that gives us strong indications of his plans. It's not easy or simple; Kennedy's style was to keep his options open and delay committing to a policy, and he was in an environment in which 'talking tough' was politically expedient while not always an accurate reflection of his views.
We could say that we'll never know if Bush in a third term would have dedicated himself to the battle for gay marriage equality - but we have a pretty good idea.
It's not as if the issues that would lead Kennedy to oppose the war the way the nation later came to view it were lost on him. Here's info on one major speech he gave on Vietnam:
That speech was given by new *Senator* Kennedy in 1954 after visiting Vietnam.
As his close advisor Ted Sorenson further writes:
Your last statement is where you go badly wrong. Kennedy absolutely could not 'have easily not done so', abandoning a commitment made by Eisenhower.
Kennedy was President of a nation that was feeling its oats, that had fallen for the propaganda that the future of the human race's freedom was in great peril and rested on their resolve to stand up to the threat, in a cold war political situation vulnerable to attacks from the far right of being 'weak on communism', that largely limited the maneuvering room of politicians, with 'appeasers' quickly trashed (an era following Neville Chamberlein and the twoce defeat of Adlai Stevenson).
If you really want an understanding, a few books you could start with are "House of War", an excellent history of the period that captures the culture; "JFK and Vietnam", perhaps the most rigorous popular history on the iesue; and "In Retrospect" by Robert McNamara, whose position on the war changed so much from the ultimate insider's view.
McNamara was the official closest to the start of the war outside of the presidents; he might make himself look better by saying he thinks Kennedy would have chosen war, but he does not. He concludes based on his years with Kennedy that Kennedy would have likely withdrawn from Vietnam instead of choosing war.
Kennedy increased the advisors because he inherited a commitment from Eisenhower, and he had to carefully walk a line between not appearing to 'weakly' abandon such a commitment, while restraining the government from escalating to war. He also liked to keep his options open, and he wanted to see the South win if it were possible with limited help; he just became increasingly convinced it was not possible, hence his allowing President Diem to be removed in a coup (he did not approve his assassination).
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Kennedy increased the "advisors" from Ike's levels
Johnson said that he was following the lead of Kennedy in the commitment of troops.
As president; either could have not increased and started a withdrawl if desired.
The buck/responsibility stops with them.
He supported the SV in fighting the Communists and knew that the limited advisors placed in there by Ike was not going to cut it.
Johnson said that he was following the lead of Kennedy in the commitment of troops.
As president; either could have not increased and started a withdrawl if desired.
The buck/responsibility stops with them.
He supported the SV in fighting the Communists and knew that the limited advisors placed in there by Ike was not going to cut it.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Going back to tech's original comments
The Dem presidents over the past 50 years have not been angels and do not walk on water.
The same can be said of the Republican presidents over the past 50 years.
while there have been more Dem presidents than Republican; the Republican's have a stronger track record of reelection than the Dems.
There have only been one one term president that was Republican that wasorignally elected and Ford who ws not elected but did not et re-elected.
Johnson and Carter on the Dem side were one term presidents after election.
The Dems have at the most strung 8 years together (twice) while the Repub have strung 12 years together and two 8 year streaks.
There have been 6 Dem presidents in that time frame with 5 Republican presidents
The Dem presidents over the past 50 years have not been angels and do not walk on water.
The same can be said of the Republican presidents over the past 50 years.
while there have been more Dem presidents than Republican; the Republican's have a stronger track record of reelection than the Dems.
There have only been one one term president that was Republican that wasorignally elected and Ford who ws not elected but did not et re-elected.
Johnson and Carter on the Dem side were one term presidents after election.
The Dems have at the most strung 8 years together (twice) while the Repub have strung 12 years together and two 8 year streaks.
There have been 6 Dem presidents in that time frame with 5 Republican presidents
Difference here is Nixon committed a serious crime, Starr spent millions investigating a blow job that wouldn't have been a blip on the radar screen in any other real country.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Clinton's stonewalling is what caused Starr to spend and keep chasing.
He acted like he had skeletons to hide; the prosecutor was digging for those skeletons.
It only turn out later that he was attempting to hide the fact that he would abuse his position to keep his pants around his ankles.
"excuse me mr president can I please have a sample of your jizz it's a matter of national security"
"uh fuck off"
"YOU OBSTRUCTIONIST!" *IMPEACHES U*
"uh fuck off"
"YOU OBSTRUCTIONIST!" *IMPEACHES U*
One of your problems is your habit of just Making Crap Up for your arguments out of convenience without regard for the truth.
There were real and serious problems with Starr.
Try reading a book one time for a change. Pointer: Sidney Blumenthal. The guy the same Republican crowd smeared with outrageous lies that he was a wife beater.
Duh. He inherited Ike's committment - and he also defused the Laos crisis handed to him on the verge of war. You don't turn a battleship on a dime, much less the nation.
If you can't grasp the massive difference between Kennedy's *no gorund war* policy and Lyndon Johnson's *ground war* policy, you have bigger problems than I can help with.
There was an issue with Kennedy's advisors - who had been more pro-war than Kennedy - misleading LBJ about JFK's position, suggesting to him that Kennedy was more pro-war.
LBJ was different in critical ways - he lacked JFK's years of building credibility, most pointedly in the Cuban Missile Crisis; and he had been far more in favor of going to war in Vietnam than Kennedy all along, calling Diem "The Winston Churchill of Southeast Asia" and recommending ground troops as vice-president. He was livid when Kennedy allowed Diem to be removed, and Diem was killed, and immediately reversed secret Kennedy executive order policies to move towards withdrawal.
No, Common Courtesy has no idea of the options, challenges, repercussions of the policy options available - that's an accurate statement, not the one you wrote.
In the most literal sense they 'could have', the same way the President 'could' order the invasion of Mexico tomorrow, but no, he can't, practically.
JFK had a cold war to fight, he had a militaristic US public to keep happy with his leadership in the cold war, he had a national culture for 'standing strong' against communism and prone to view these issues as requiring the US not to let the world fall to tyranny - there would be big prices to pay in his political support for other policies if he abandoned Eisenhower's committment casually (as, for example, Dougla MacArthur privately advised Kennedy to do, telling him to avoid any ground war in Asia).
You just make crap up to post. 'Oh he could just reverse our policy instantly and easily, so that's the end of that issue, next?'
Forget the worldwide crisis in confidence in American leadership it would bring, the domestic revolt against our 'coward president' allowing the communists to march on under the dominao theory - a theory Kennedy had offered public support for - as people asked where the line would be drawn, if anywhere, Laos? Thailand? India? Japan? Where?
Kennedy knew how to de-escalate, and he was doing so. Again courtesy of Sorensen:
There are more such statements. He was laying the groundwork for being able to withdraw with a minimal political impact - a President doesn't plant the seed that an ally has to fight a war themselves and raise the possibility they can lose, for fun, and when he's planning to get involved and 'save' them - instead he makes the case why it's essential for them not to fall, to justify keeping the option open. Kennedy said some things on both sides, to let him walk the fine line of 'strength' while paving the way for withdrawal.
As he did with his symbolic withdrawal of 1,000 of the 16,000 advisors in October, weeks before Diem was allowed ot be removed.
Hence his facing the choice of withdrawal or war - and leaning strongly towards withdrawal, and taking many steps to pave the way for it, and constantly rejecting pressure for war.
There's a reason there are many books on this topic, because it's not simple as your made-up comments try to claim.
It takes effort to discern a president's 'real', 'private', agenda hidden at the time from even close advisors, tri-angulating contemporary documents, memoirs, history, and more.
I understand you want to participate in the discussion, but you can't just run around saying how he could 'easily' change the fundmental US-Asia cold war policy.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Do you have an alternate?
A politician's natural instinct seems to be CYA when the have been wrong; defensive and denial mode.
That triggers a predator reflex/instinct to chase the prey
Nixon and abortion...Have to wonder how late the term could be?
Up to how many months along do you think Nixon supported abortion for bi-racial people? I'm guessing its open ended.
It's ironic, but Nixon tried to replace Abe Fortas, the hated Jew on the Supreme Court, first with arch-segregationist Clement Haynsworth, then after that failed, with the notoriously mediocre G. Harrold Carswell. Carswell had 58% of his opinions overturned on appeal. It was not discovered until years later that he was also in the closet. A dozen Republicans had voted against each choice.
Finally Nixon settled on Harry Blackmun, who sailed through Senate confirmation 94-0 and who was to write the decision in Roe v. Wade.
Up to how many months along do you think Nixon supported abortion for bi-racial people? I'm guessing its open ended.
It's ironic, but Nixon tried to replace Abe Fortas, the hated Jew on the Supreme Court, first with arch-segregationist Clement Haynsworth, then after that failed, with the notoriously mediocre G. Harrold Carswell. Carswell had 58% of his opinions overturned on appeal. It was not discovered until years later that he was also in the closet. A dozen Republicans had voted against each choice.
Finally Nixon settled on Harry Blackmun, who sailed through Senate confirmation 94-0 and who was to write the decision in Roe v. Wade.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Who makes the policy? I thought that it is the WH/Executive branch.
Funny that the Dems have been able to change the policy (foriegn or domestic) when it is from the Repubs if it suits their agenda. And then if they realize that to change the policy would be a mistake, then their previous statements are ignored.
You state that there were 16000 advsors in place under Kennedy in '63. that sounds lke an escalation.
Ike advised Kennedy that he would have to send tropps in to help.
what Kennedy may have stated for policial andpublic consumption does not match with what he actually did.
The US under Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon all realized that the South was incapable of fighting let alone winning the war on their own. they all realized that as the weakness of the South was exposed, they had to increase the support of let the South accept the consequences.
Nixon was the only one that was willing to make the decision.
Now Craig and others that think JFK walked on water, can pull all the speeches and policy papers you want from the historians. I will stand by his actions.
He did not pull outasingletropp from the time he was elected and increased military aid and personel during the time hewas president.
He had the choice of leaving the status quo in place, but because of the US committment against Communism; he increased the stakes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter