On Oct 21, 1:29 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On Oct 20, 7:23 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
oglegroups.com...
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.
Certainly...it was all a chain of events. Each depended on history.
Johnson couldn't do what he did if Kennedy had pulled out.
Kennedy couldn't do what he did if Eisenhower had forced
legit elections according to Geneva accords and so on.
But then there is also the possibility that if any had done so...
there would not be democracies in the region like Singapore and
the Philippines.
History is full of possibilities, 2pid. What if Hannibal hadn't
"discovered" the elephant?
The same kind of rhetoric is now
revolving around Iran. Does that automatically mean that we're "going
in"?
No.
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.
Pathetic and childish but typical of you.
Why would that be, 2pid? 'Discussions' are based on what one party or
the other says. You state "IMO" and "I have little doubt". What would
you call that aside from opinion and belief?
My opinion is based on the preponderance of the evidence which
you choose to ignore and counter with posturing.
"Posturing" and "ignorance" usually does not include references to
official histories, 2pid.
Perhaps it is your argument that is "pathetic" and "childish".
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.
Common misconception not supported by all the relevant facts
as I've shown.
"Kennedy's policy towards South Vietnam rested on the assumption that
Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their
own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and
observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today,
while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would
almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run,
adverse military consequences."[53]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam...y.27s_escalati...
Yup. I'm convinced.
Yes you would accept such a trifle bit of evidence simply because it
agrees with your POV.
And because it fits with Kennedy's actions, but you go girl.
In the meantime his actions told a different story.
Nope.
He increased advisers 30 fold. He authorized US combat air force operations.
Not true.
"In 1964 the United States began full-scale military operations on the
side of South Vietnam and, in 1965, launched Operation Rolling Thunder
against targets in North Vietnam."
http://www.airforce.com/mission/history_p3.php
"The first American military personnel to arrive at NKP in 1963 were
the U.S. Navy's Mobile Construction Battalion Three (Seabees) who
undertook the task of constructing the runways and raising the first
buildings as part of a United States commitment under SEATO. In early
1964 the 507th Tactical Control Squadron became the first USAF unit
assigned to the base, with the 5th Tactical Control Group being the
host unit.
*****Nakhon Phanom originally housed search and rescue forces and
maintained a communications capability in support of U.S. Air Force
objectives in Southeast Asia.***** (emphasis mine, note the types of
missions authorized.)
In May 1965 the 6235th Air Base Squadron was formed and assumed host
command responsibilities. On 8 April 1966 the 6235th Air Base Squadron
was discontinued and the 634th Combat Support Group along with its
subordinate squadrons was activated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhon_...Air_Force_Base
Kennedy did send Army Aviation to Vietnam. These were transportation,
medical lift, and search-and-rescue assets.
He increased military aid.
So what? We've increased aid to several countries in the last five
years. We increased aid to France in Vietnam in the 1950s.
He approved the use of defoliants, authorized destruction of rice crops
and then approved a coup of Diem.
And, ironically, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt killed his own son with Agent
Orange.
There is no way to forensically prognosticate what COA JFK
*might* have decided given variables that did not exist in his
lifetime.
It was Kennedy's decision (approving the Diem coup) that
aligned the variables requiring Johnson to either send in the
troops or accept failure of Kennedy's policy.
Oh, you meant to reiterate that the leader of the nation had a choice
to make. I already knew that. I also already know what choices he
made, and how he made them. Johnson had to make choices. Johnson made
choices.
Of course he did. The question is would Kennedy have made the same
choices had he not been killed. I say the evidence says he would.
But you've already admitted you haven't read perhaps the single most
important book on the topic of the US intervention in Vietnam. I would
say you have not seen all of the evidence.
So we have an opinion, "I say..." and we have fact" "you have not
seen..."
"Eager to get moving, we never stopped to explore fully whether there
were other routes to our destination."
~Robert S. McNamara, 1995
See? There's one example.
Would Kennedy have accepted failure and refused to commit
troops? Possibly but I doubt it.
Belief again, and another pathetic attempt at forensic
prognostication.
Nope...all the evidence shows that when faced with accepting failure
and exiting or committing additional resources, Kennedy chose the
latter.
All of the evidence shows an intractable refusal on Kennedy's part to
commit US troops to direct combat action. He sent advisors. He sent
support. He did not tip over that edge into direct US combat
operations, and he specifically stated that he thought doing do would
be a mistake.
If he had there would have been probable negative consequences
to that beyond the obvious as well.
You want to argue history based on your opinions and beliefs and
hypothetical probablilities, when your reading on the subject is
obviously sorely lacking. I prefer to argue history on what actually
happened.
Then you should only judge Kennedy on his actions...none of which
lead to the US getting out of Vietnam. With every decision he faced,
he escalated our commitment.
He increased advosors. He increased material and financial support to
the RVN. He did not, however, ever cross that line that committed the
US military to a direct-intervention role and direct combat
operations. That was Johnson's doing.
Of course, you can argue the US Army and US Air Force official
histories, if you want to. They're probably in Washington somewhere.
Say, 2pid, would Humphrey have continued exactly down the path that
Johnson policies 'chose' for him, if Johnson had died in office in
1966? Johnson and Kennedy were as much alike as Johnson and Humphrey
were. What would your forensic prognostications tell you in that case?
Here's a hint:
"By 1968, his position was not much different from that of the peace
forces: both favored a unilateral bombing halt. Humphrey had reached
agreement with the peace forces on a compromise plank for the
convention, but, at the last minute, Johnson intervened and vetoed his
efforts. It was Humphrey's unwillingness to offend Lyndon Johnson, not
his commitment to any strategic doctrine, that prevented him from
calling for a bombing halt until late in the campaign."
http://www.hubert-humphrey.com/0495joy.hhh
So is there where I say, "Bonehead, it's not woth 'discussing' things
with you", and then you declare 'victory'? Just curious.