On Oct 20, 11:45 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Oct 18, 10:24 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
You seem to imply that Johnson's escalation was a continuation of
Kennedy's policy. You'd be wrong, as usual.
Typical unsubstantiated claims on your part.
Here, 2pid, I'll even spend the time... again, knowing that it's very
likely a total waste of my time. It's OK, 2pid: I enjoy reading
military history. Most professional soldiers do if they are in a
leadership position.
Here you go, 2pid. In an effort to 'discuss' this, I am linking you to
the official US Army history of Vietnam. If you decide to read it, pay
attention to the year 1964 and later.
Yes...Johnson made a transititon Kennedy had opposed.
Oh, really? That's news to me!
But there was nothing that proves Kennedy would not have changed his
mind and your post does NOTHING to refute my assertion that Kennedy's
policy was a significant escalation on it's own and led to Johnson's
actions...and to a large degree forced him to do so.
Indeed. There's NOTHING to prove that Kennedy, if he had lived, might
not have "changed his mind" and dropped a nuke on Hanoi. Kennedy
clearly added more advisors. Who committed the US military and
escalated the war to the point of inextricably engaging the US
military as a combat force?
When arguing history, 2pid, it is often better to use things that
actually happened, rather than speculation on what MIGHT have
happened, if only...
So you're clearly right. Kennedy MIGHT HAVE done anything, once he had
changed his policy and changed his mind, if indeed he had ever done
so.
Using your 'logic' Roosevelt MIGHT HAVE surrendered to the Japanese
had he lived. So where does that leave us?
Especially the coup which led to anarchy.
He supported a coup that was going to happen anyway. In fact, an
argument could be made that the mess was Diem's fault to begin with:
"As opposition to Di m's rule in South Vietnam grew, a low-level
insurgency began to take shape there in 1957. Finally, in January
1959, under pressure from southern cadres who were being successfully
targeted by Di m's secret police, Hanoi's Central Committee issued a
secret resolution authorizing the use of armed struggle in the South.
On 20 December 1960, under instruction from Hanoi, southern communists
established the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam in
order to overthrow the government of the south. The NLF was made up of
two distinct groups: South Vietnamese intellectuals who opposed the
government and were nationalists; and communists who had remained in
the south after the partition and regrouping of 1954 as well as those
who had since come from the north, together with local peasants. While
there were many non-communist members of the NLF, they were subject to
the control of the party cadres and increasingly side-lined as the
conflict continued; they did, however, enable the NLF to portray
itself as a primarily nationalist, rather than communist, movement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem
He died leaving Johnson faced with accepting the complete
failure of Kennedy's policy or sending in the troops.
So Johnson faced a choice. That happens to leaders sometimes, 2pid,
and then they have to decide which path to take. That happens to
sergeants and second lieutenants, and it maybe even happens to low-
level lackeys like you.
The failure was not Kennedy's: that ball had started rolling under
Truman. Why are you giving Truman and Eisenhower a 'pass'? Johnson
made the choices (or probably more accurately, McNamara did).
Kennedy's policy was an extension of Eisenhower's policy. Therefore,
using your 'logic', it was all Eisenhower's fault. Unless Eisenhower
might have changed his mind if his term hadn't ended when it did.
Therefore, it is Eisenhower who might have nuked Hanoi, and who may
have escalated the war. Unless you consider Truman... Lol!
Case closed.
Failing to recognize Kennedy's role in laying the groundwork
for events to come after his death is to ignore history.
Who's 'ignoring' it, 2pid? Stopping at Kennedy removes Eisenhower from
the chain.
So where does Eisenhower fit in? He had 500 advisors on the ground.
The escalation that Johnson oversaw, as well as the switch from a
clearly advisory role to one of offensive operations and a commitment
of the US military, must have been his fault.
Johnson, as President of the US and CinC of all the military, made his
choices. Did Kennedy make mistakes? Sure, as did Eisenhower and
Truman. To attempt to blame Kennedy for Johnson's escalation and
greater involvement in the war is a stupid position. That's like
trying to blame bushie's folly in Iraq on the British for their
creation of Iraq in the first place.
As I said, 2pid, 'discussing' things with you is a waste of time.
Basing an argument on what "might have" happened is clearly not a
rational position, particularly when we're not trying to
prognosticate.
And you haven't read _Dereliction of Duty_. Why not? What are you
afraid of? Lol!