On Oct 20, 4:07 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
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?
Kennedy clearly recognized he did exactly that
with his admission shortly before his assassination
that he had no idea how to get out of Vietnam.
The "inextricable engagement" occurred long before the
first combat troops were deployed, Kennedy's own words
show that clearly.
His comment shows that while he loathed having to commit combat troops,
he was also subject to the same inevitability of his policies that
Johnson was.
Here's an interview with Robert Kennedy that clearly says there
was no plan to pullout and they had to stay in and could not lose.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm
Here's what Kennedy said in an interview with Huntley/Brinkley in
Sept. '63.
Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. President, have You had any reason to doubt
this so-called "domino theory," that if South Viet-Nam falls, the rest
of Southeast Asia will go behind it ?
The PRESIDENT. No, I believe it. I believe it. I think that the
struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms so high just beyond
the frontiers, that if South Viet-Nam went, it would not only give them
an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya but
would also Live the impression that the wave of the future in Southeast
Asia was China and the Communists. So I believe it.
When arguing history, 2pid, it is often better to use things that
actually happened, rather than speculation on what MIGHT have
happened, if only...
We know what happened. The issue you are unable to contemplate
are why they happened. Kennedy is central to that.
So are Truman and Eisenhower. The same kind of rhetoric is now
revolving around Iran. Does that automatically mean that we're "going
in"?
IMO, Johnson simply carried on with a policy Kennedy put
in place. I have little doubt that if Kennedy had not been killed,
he would have made the same decisions Johnson made.
At least you admit that your argument is only based on opinion and
belief.
That's progress.
His beliefs and his policy left him no choice.
His beliefs AND his policy were both against what Johnson ended up
doing. There is no way to forensically prognosticate what COA JFK
*might* have decided given variables that did not exist in his
lifetime. JFK and Johnson were certainly not psychological or
emotional.spitting images of one another.