On Oct 23, 11:08 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 10:35 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 7:24 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 2:57 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
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.
Yeah...that's relevant. (sarcasm intended)
As relevant as defoliation is to the subject at hand.
I answered this once, perhaps the long answer will show up eventually.
Here you go, 2pid. As usual, you're too lazy to research. Your
'opinions' and 'beliefs' are more important than mere facts. Note
where this is published, as well.
"McNamara [in his book] said, 'We were wrong, terribly wrong'[about
Vietnam] but that he and others were prisoners of the Cold War
ideology of containment. So they had no flexibility. It didn't matter
who the President was, who the Secretary of Defense was, who the
members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were, because they were compelled
by the ideology of the time."
Sounds like he agrees with me.
Uh-huh. Did you keep reading? Watch:
"What this new evidence shows dramatically is that these were men who
not only should have known better but who did know better. It also
shows that the war, far from being inevitable, was only made possible
by the deliberate deceit and manipulation of the American public, the
Congress, and members of Johnson's own administration."
http://www.afa.org/magazine/perspect...m/0198duty.asp
and it also says...
"_______ forgot about integrity and followed a course of "arrogance,
weakness,
lying in the pursuit of self-interest, and, above all, the abdication of
responsibility to the American people."
You could easily insert Harry Reid or Pelosi and be spot on.
Did they lie and start a war that I wasn't aware of?
Nah...they just try to lie and lose one for political gain.
And if you go read this, look at how important Johnson's personality
and emotional traits were an issue.
Yeah...but this say nothing to the question...what would Kennedy do.
And to discuss that... ...you need to understand what Johnson and crew
*did*.
You appear to presume that the only course to war was the
"crooked" one Johnhson took...and presume Kennedy would
not follow that path nor make his own to war.
That's just plain bizaare. BTW...Kennedy's Bay of Pigs fiasco
shows he wasn't all that strong in resisting foolish recomendations
of his advisors.
You do not. Therefore, further 'discussion' on this topic will
likely result in "circular" 'logic' which is very much like a dog
chasing its tail.
BS spin...
Fact based on long evidence.
You want to anoint him and claim the deity could never have been
the schmuck that Johnson was...except his track record while in office
doesn't support it. And that's really the only relevant evidence there
is.
I have not "anointed" anybody, 2pid. My, what an 'imagination' we
have!
I have looked at:
1. How Johnson (and crew) got us into Vietnam in a big way, and with
combat soldiers, and
2. Kennedy's stated opinions and his official policies, and
3. The personality differences between Kennedy and Johnson. I came up
with a different conclusion.
Perhaps Kennedy wouldn't have been the schmuck Johnson was...but
that does not support the conclusion that when faced with the choices
of defeat or commit troops...he would have withdrawn and accepted defeat.
I never said that.
There is no evidence of that beyond his stated "desire" to not have to commit
troops to prevent defeat, but nothing shows he would have chosen defeat.
In fact...there is much to the contrary.
Here's the question for you 2pid:
Do you 'think' JFK would have lied to Congress, would have told his
advisors what to tell him, would've been ultimately concerned with
"keeping everybody 'on the Johnson [Kennedy] team'", would have
secretly sent in combat troops in dribs and drabs until we were
actually committed before anybody knew what was happening, would have
been as open to the machinations of the JCOS and others, would have
been ultimately concerned with loyalty and presenting a united
front...
Your position is that Johnson was forced into making the choices he
did. The evidence strongly says otherwise, but it is, after all,
evidence that you refuse to consider or look at.
What is that you're chasing? Ah, yes. It's your tail... again.