[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 3:47 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
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...

Maybe that's a question for you... my question is much simpler..
would Kennedy have pulled out of Vietnam in '65 or sent in
the troops? All the rest of your pontification is irrelevant to
this fundamental question.

Without understanding how the combat troops were sent, 'discussing'
this with you is irrelevant.

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.

More silly spin...I say Johnson was left with a binary
decision due to Kennedy's policy on Diem.

Yet you have shown an unwillingness to consider perhaps the most
important evidence...

A choice Kennedy would have faced just as Johnson did.
This choice was accept defeat and withdraw
or send in troops. After choosing to send them in...there is an endless
series of question on how Johnson conducted the operation.
None of that matters if the hi-level decision is different.

Indeed, yet you do not understand the high-level decision and show no
interest in learning about it. So WTF are you prattling about?

So the primary question remains...would Kennedy have sent in
troops or accepted defeat?

He already had sent in troops, 2pid, in support and advisory roles.
The question, is would Kennedy have committed divisions of troops in
direct combat roles. Actually, the more important question is would he
have attempted to it in the same way. I think not.

Here's the deal, 2pid: what you're claiming is that the same thing
definitely would have happened regardless of who was president. Yet
you do not understand what happened. Isn't that funny to you? Not even
in the slightest?

There is no way Kennedy and Johnson would have reacted the same way.
They were entirely different people.

Why don't you read _Dereliction of Duty_ and we can 'discuss' this
point further. You can probably get one for a buck or two on Amazon.