[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

You can be honest. He won't remember tomorrow what was said.

I wasn't even aware of his absence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 16, 6:33 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 16, 4:01 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

wrote:
You can be honest. He won't remember tomorrow what was said.

I wasn't even aware of his absence.

Nor of Middiots pondering my whereabouts.

Somehow, RAO plugged along without you.

The list of things you have no awareness of....grows longer.

I am aware of many things, 2pid. The difference is that those things I
am aware of matter.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Oct, 20:07, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 16, 6:33 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 16, 4:01 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

wrote:
You can be honest. He won't remember tomorrow what was said.

I wasn't even aware of his absence.

Nor of Middiots pondering my whereabouts.

Somehow, RAO plugged along without you.

The list of things you have no awareness of....grows longer.

I am aware of many things, 2pid. The difference is that those things I
am aware of matter.

there are things you are aware of, things you are aware you are not
aware fo, and
things you are not aware you are not aware of, such as this statement.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

things you are not aware you are not aware of, such as this statement.

Are you aware of what kennel Scottie went to for detox?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 16, 7:48 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Oct, 20:07, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!





wrote:
On Oct 16, 6:33 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 16, 4:01 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

wrote:
You can be honest. He won't remember tomorrow what was said.

I wasn't even aware of his absence.

Nor of Middiots pondering my whereabouts.

Somehow, RAO plugged along without you.

The list of things you have no awareness of....grows longer.

I am aware of many things, 2pid. The difference is that those things I
am aware of matter.

there are things you are aware of, things you are aware you are not
aware fo, and
things you are not aware you are not aware of, such as this statement.

It's two to, what, a thousand? The good news is that you'll get a high
draft next year.

Better call on good old Arns to 'help' make your case.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Oct, 21:06, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 16, 7:48 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:


there are things you are aware of, things you are aware you are not
aware fo, and
things you are not aware you are not aware of, such as this statement.

It's two to, what, a thousand? The good news is that you'll get a high
draft next year.

Better call on good old Arns to 'help' make your case.

then i can say i've been there, done that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 16, 9:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
I am aware of many things, 2pid. The difference is that those things I
am aware of matter.

So that explains why you ignored the Middiots pleas....
on him, we agree.

As we do on a national health care plan, pulling the troops out of
Iraq, raising taxes, and so on.

I knew it: you're really a Liberal.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com...

On Oct 16, 9:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
I am aware of many things, 2pid. The difference is that those things I
am aware of matter.

So that explains why you ignored the Middiots pleas....
on him, we agree.

As we do on a national health care plan, pulling the troops out of
Iraq, raising taxes, and so on.

I knew it: you're really a Liberal.

I am.... of the Kennedy democrat type.

Nah. You'd need a much larger world view than you seem capable of.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 16, 11:11 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com...





On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

On Oct 16, 9:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
I am aware of many things, 2pid. The difference is that those things I
am aware of matter.

So that explains why you ignored the Middiots pleas....
on him, we agree.

As we do on a national health care plan, pulling the troops out of
Iraq, raising taxes, and so on.

I knew it: you're really a Liberal.

I am.... of the Kennedy democrat type.

Nah. You'd need a much larger world view than you seem capable of.

Kennedy's views on Cuba and Vietnam were so
worldly and successful....Lol.

What was "unsuccessful" or "unwordly"about Kennedy Cuba?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/index.htm

And what was "unwordly" about Kennedy's Vietnam approach, which kept
the US's military commitment to a minimum? Not a big enough bang for
you?

"At the time of the Kennedy and Diem assassinations, there were 16,000
military advisers in Vietnam. The Kennedy administration had managed
to run the war from Washington without the large-scale introduction of
American combat troops. The continuing political problems in Saigon,
however, convinced the new president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, that more
aggressive action was needed. Perhaps Johnson was more prone to
military intervention or maybe events in Vietnam had forced the
president's hand to more direct action. In any event, after a dubious
DRV raid on two U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, the Johnson
administration argued for expansive war powers for the president."

http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietna...ory/index.html

However, I was referring to "Ich bin ein Berliner." Kennedy did not
say, as you might have, "Ich bin ein Amerikaner, so **** off."

I don't think Kennedy was selfish, like you are.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

However, I was referring to "Ich bin ein Berliner."

That one always makes me laugh: "I am a doughnut." Har.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 17, 4:28 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 17, 2:03 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:11 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com...

On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

On Oct 16, 9:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
I am aware of many things, 2pid. The difference is that those things I
am aware of matter.

So that explains why you ignored the Middiots pleas....
on him, we agree.

As we do on a national health care plan, pulling the troops out of
Iraq, raising taxes, and so on.

I knew it: you're really a Liberal.

I am.... of the Kennedy democrat type.

Nah. You'd need a much larger world view than you seem capable of.

Kennedy's views on Cuba and Vietnam were so
worldly and successful....Lol.

What was "unsuccessful" or "unwordly"about Kennedy Cuba?

Lets see...after the Bay of Pigs fiasco....Castro offers to talk to
Kennedy
and you want to give him credit for thinking about it.
That's deep and wordly and deep....

Here's the incompetence rampant in their planning...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/index.html
(note your site...different page)

President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, on
March 2, 1963, in which they discuss concerns that a Senate
investigating committee might reveal that the president had authorized
jets from the U.S. aircraft carrier Essex to provide one hour of air
cover for the brigade's B-26 bombers on the morning of April 19. The
unmarked jets failed to rendezvous with the bombers, however, because
the CIA and the Pentagon were unaware of a time zone difference
between Nicaragua and Cuba. Two B-26s were shot down and four
Americans lost.

LIVES LOST OVER A TIME ZONE DIFFERENCE....
GMAFB.



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/index.htm

And what was "unwordly" about Kennedy's Vietnam approach, which kept
the US's military commitment to a minimum?
Not a big enough bang for
you?

"At the time of the Kennedy and Diem assassinations, there were 16,000
military advisers in Vietnam.

This is your minimum? At the start of Kennedy they were 500.

And at the end of Johnson there were one million.

Kennedy oversaw a greater than 30 fold increase.
Kennedy started the escalation... Johnson continued it.

You seem to imply that Johnson's escalation was a continuation of
Kennedy's policy. You'd be wrong, as usual.

Kennedy gets no pass on Vietnam.

Um, I don't recall asking for any pass, 2pid.

Using your 'logic', Kennedy is a bad guy for holding the lid on
Vietnam, while Johnson's increase was somehow equivalent. Kennedy had
less than one division in country. Johnson revved that up to several
divisions.

Kennedy worked to keep the US from becoming decisively engaged.
Johnson wanted to become decisively engaged. Can you see the subtle
difference?

You still have not read COL H.R. McMaster's book _Derilection of
Duty_. You should, as it is almost required reading in the military
these days. And we all want you to maintain your reputation for
military 'expertise', don't we?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 18, 10:24 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

On Oct 17, 4:28 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 17, 2:03 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:11 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

On Oct 16, 9:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
I am aware of many things, 2pid. The difference is that those
things I
am aware of matter.

So that explains why you ignored the Middiots pleas....
on him, we agree.

As we do on a national health care plan, pulling the troops out of
Iraq, raising taxes, and so on.

I knew it: you're really a Liberal.

I am.... of the Kennedy democrat type.

Nah. You'd need a much larger world view than you seem capable of.

Kennedy's views on Cuba and Vietnam were so
worldly and successful....Lol.

What was "unsuccessful" or "unwordly"about Kennedy Cuba?

Lets see...after the Bay of Pigs fiasco....Castro offers to talk to
Kennedy
and you want to give him credit for thinking about it.
That's deep and wordly and deep....

Here's the incompetence rampant in their planning...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/index.html
(note your site...different page)

President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, on
March 2, 1963, in which they discuss concerns that a Senate
investigating committee might reveal that the president had authorized
jets from the U.S. aircraft carrier Essex to provide one hour of air
cover for the brigade's B-26 bombers on the morning of April 19. The
unmarked jets failed to rendezvous with the bombers, however, because
the CIA and the Pentagon were unaware of a time zone difference
between Nicaragua and Cuba. Two B-26s were shot down and four
Americans lost.

LIVES LOST OVER A TIME ZONE DIFFERENCE....
GMAFB.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/index.htm

And what was "unwordly" about Kennedy's Vietnam approach, which kept
the US's military commitment to a minimum?
Not a big enough bang for
you?

"At the time of the Kennedy and Diem assassinations, there were 16,000
military advisers in Vietnam.

This is your minimum? At the start of Kennedy they were 500.

And at the end of Johnson there were one million.

Kennedy oversaw a greater than 30 fold increase.
Kennedy started the escalation... Johnson continued it.

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.

Johnson followed the natural progression of a failed Kennedy policy.

BZZZZZZZZT

If Kennedy had truly kept a lid on Vietnam, Johnson would never
have had the opportunity to do what he did.

BZZZZZZZT

Remember, it was Kennedy who said,
"Now we have a problem making our power credible and
Vietnam looks like the place"

Remember, this was Kennedy:

"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...0.E2.80.931963

Sending advisors isn't "committing the military", 2pid. Kennedy was
against that. The quotes you chose, as usual, run counter to the
'point' you are trying to make.

You haven't read _Dereliction of Duty_ yet, have you.

It was Kennedy who approved the coup and execution of Diem.

"The CIA was in contact with generals planning to remove Diem. They
were told that the United States would support such a move. President
Diem was overthrown and executed, along with his brother, on November
2, 1963. When he was informed, Maxwell Taylor remembered that Kennedy
"rushed from the room with a look of shock and dismay on his
face."[58] He had not approved Diem's murder."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam...0.E2.80.931963

It was Kennedy who sent the Green Berets to Vietnam as "advisors".

Yup. See above. Do you think people would be as upset about the war in
Iraq if we had 16,000 troops and a few planes there? That's not even a
division at full strength.

It was Kennedy who sent in the helicopters and created a joint
US - South Vietnames Air Force.

Yup. See above.

It was Kennedy who admitted he didn't know how to get out of
Vietnam.

It was bushie who didn't admit that he didn't know how to get out of
Iraq. So what? This does not improve your position of Kennedy as the
great escalator of that war. That was Johnson. This is actually an
indication that counters your 'point'.

Kennedy gets crowned for being executed..if history judged
him by his policies...he gets condemned.

Only by you, 2pid, and you've already strongly implied that you don't
believe in juries.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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. Note the shift from performing
an advisory function to authorization for offensive operations. Note
the other signs of "mission creep" (a self-explanatory military term.)
initiated by Johnson, including large-scale deployments of US troops.
It was McNamara and Johnson, in addition to the JCOS and other
military personnel (Westmoreland comes to mind), who got the ball
rolling after Kennedy's death.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/...ry/chap_28.txt

For a look into the true beginnings our escalation, from the
perspectives of both the military and civilian leadership, you could
always read _Dereliction of Duty_. The author, H.R. McMaster, is a
full colonel currently serving on active duty, although he was only a
peon major when he wrote it. COL McMaster is one of the architects of
the manual on COIN and I believe also serves as an advisor to GEN
Petraeus.

Now that I've gone to this effort to factually advance our
'discussion' and now that I have substantiated the counter to your
erroneous position which you said did not exist, you can just say,
"Ooooops! I was wrong! My bad!" and we'll be done with it.

Or you can always keep defending an impossible 'point' and prove what
everybody already knows: that it's wasted effort in linking you to the
correct information, that clearly-laid-out information is beyond you,
and that you are not really interested in discussions at all. You much
prefer 'discussions' (propaganda) and 'insults' (brainless).

Now for the "Oh, BTW". The conclusion of the chapter on Vietnam in the
official US Army history:

"The rediscovery of the Vietnam War suggests that its most important
legacy may be the lesson that unique historical, political, cultural,
and social [i.e. I would presume that religion is rolled into
"culture" or "social" here, or else its omission is clearly glaring]
factors always impinge on the military. Strategic and tactical success
rests not only on military progress but on correctly analyzing the
nature of the particular conflict, understanding the enemy's strategy
[i.e. within the context of those non-military factors above], and
realistically assessing the strengths and weaknesses of allies. A new
humility and a new sophistication may form the best parts of the
complex heritage left the Army by the long, bitter war in Vietnam."

Perhaps now you begin to see, 2pid, why tactical military successes
are not very high on my radar regarding our overall potential for
success in Iraq. Looking only at the military at the tactical level is
one way to insure failure, as we have done up until now, and which
bushie is trying his ass off to perpetuate. GEN Petraeus' report was
the second most important report given to Congress that day. And
perhaps you'll also begin to see some pretty striking similarities
between Iraq and Vietnam.

Here's another interesting quote from this article:

"First under the auspices of the Central Intelligence Agency and then
under a military commander, the Special Forces organized the highland
tribes into the Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) and in time
sought to recruit other ethnic groups and sects in the South as well.
To this scheme, underwritten almost entirely by the United States,
Diem gave only tepid support. Indeed, the civilian irregulars drew
strength from groups traditionally hostile to Saigon. Treated with
disdain by the lowland Vietnamese, the Montagnards developed close,
trusting relations with their Army advisers. Special Forces detachment
commanders frequently were the real leaders of CIDG units. This strong
mutual bond of loyalty between adviser and highlander benefited
operations, but some tribal leaders sought to exploit the special
relationship to advance Montagnard political autonomy. On occasion,
Special Forces advisers found themselves in the awkward position of
mediating between militant Montagnards and South Vietnamese officials
who were suspicious and wary of the Americans' sympathy for the
highlanders."

Substitute "Sunni" and "Shia" and "Kurds" for "Montagnards" and
"Lowlanders" and substitute "Diem" for "Maliki" and see what you get.
This is why I'm not overly optimistic about basing "success" on our
new-found friends, the Sunnis.

And yet another striking similarity: "But potential benefits were
nullified by the absence of a clear doctrine and a coherent
operational strategy for the conduct of counterinsurgency, and by
chronic military and political shortcomings on the part of the South
Vietnamese." You can read about the rampant corruption in the
government of the RVN on your own.

History is a bitch, isn't it, 2pid? It's too bad people never seem to
learn anything from it. It's not too late for you, though, 2pid. I
promise.

Lol!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 20, 11:45 am, "ScottW" wrote:

Oh, BTW, 2pid. Aren't the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq
"stunning"? You 'forgot' to address that.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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 Phillipines.

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?

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.

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.

"Eager to get moving, we never stopped to explore fully whether there
were other routes to our destination."
~Robert S. McNamara, 1995

Would Kennedy have accepted failure and refused to commit
troops? Possibly but I doubt it.

Belief again, and another pathetic attempt at forensic
prognostication.

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.

Oh well.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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."

"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

Now why do you suppose this is on the recommended reading list for the
military? Any 'thoughts' on that, 2pid? Why has it been read by most
senior Army leaders? If you know more than they do about it, 2pid,
they will listen to you. Call the Pentagon right away!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 21, 2:57 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in

snip He authorized US combat air force operations.

Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam...y.27s_escalati...

"Kennedy had introduced helicopters to the war and created a joint U.S.-South
Vietnamese Air Force, staffed with American pilots."

What often precedes "full-scale" military operations?

An "attack" like the one on the Gulf of Tonkin.

_Dereliction of Duty_. It's a good book, 2pid. You should read it.
Here are some comments by the author:

"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.

"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

Of course, your "opnion" and "beliefs" outweigh the evidence of those
who have done the "research".

Kennedy did send Army Aviation to Vietnam. These were transportation,
medical lift, and search-and-rescue assets.

He increased military aid.

So what?

So that is not a de-escalation.

Do you even understand what is being said to you? Find the point where
I said "Kennedy de-escalated prior to his death."

2pid, the reason people get frustrated with you is you can never,
ever, stay on topic during a 'discussion'.

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)

It is exactly as relevant as your bringing up defoliants as an
"escalation" or as a "combat operation". (No sarcasm intended.)

[Clyde Slick]

On 22 Oct, 20:24, "ScottW" wrote:



Our military has been infiltrated by a bunch of code pinkos?...
But you already proved that. Luckily, they're slowly being
forced out.



yo0u can tell them apart by the wimpy lacadaisical salutes

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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 if you go read this, look at how important Johnson's personality
and emotional traits were an issue.

Now why do you suppose this is on the recommended reading list for the
military?

Our military has been infiltrated by a bunch of code pinkos?...

Yes, "Code Pinkos" like COL H.R. McMaster, Colonel, USA. BTW, 2pid, do
you suppose that a person who wrote a book as a major would make
colonel if what he wrote was not true, not well researched, not well
referenced, and so on? Do you suppose a book on history that was not
valid would survive the scrutiny of historians and fellow military
officers? Duh.

So why don't you support the troops, 2pid? Isn't calling an active-
duty officer a "Pinko" against what you 'stand' for?

But you already proved that. Luckily, they're slowly being
forced out.

What a dilemma you've created for yourself. It would be "lucky" if one
of the main advisors to the Commanding General in Iraq, who is working
to reverse five years of our bungled policy, is "forced out."

So what you're really saying is that you hope we fail in Iraq. The
true 2pid comes out.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 22, 8:47 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

yo0u can tell them apart by the wimpy lacadaisical salutes

The RIP'r campaign ribbon is a dead giveaway.

2pid gets his ass handed to him... again, and this is the best he can
come up with. LOL!

2pid, a simple "you were right" will suffice.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 22, 7:29 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com...





On Oct 21, 2:57 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in

snip He authorized US combat air force operations.

Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam...y.27s_escalati...

"Kennedy had introduced helicopters to the war and created a joint U.S.-South
Vietnamese Air Force, staffed with American pilots."

What often precedes "full-scale" military operations?

An "attack" like the one on the Gulf of Tonkin.

_Dereliction of Duty_. It's a good book, 2pid. You should read it.
Here are some comments by the author:

"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.

You are getting repititous.

I clearly stated in the other post that this response had not
appeared. After a few hours I reposted the salient points.

McNamara got nothing right during his
service...yet when he's hawking a book...his credibility is beyond
dispute.

That was not the point at all. What McMaster said was that he read
McNamara's book AS HE WAS RESEARCHING IT. He saw the guy was lying his
ass off. McMaster was reading the records of meetings and so on.
McNamara's recollection ran counter to the record.

"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

Of course, your "opnion" and "beliefs" outweigh the evidence of those
who have done the "research".

Kennedy did send Army Aviation to Vietnam. These were transportation,
medical lift, and search-and-rescue assets.

He increased military aid.

So what?

So that is not a de-escalation.

Do you even understand what is being said to you? Find the point where
I said "Kennedy de-escalated prior to his death."

So...if Kennedy didn't die would escalation have continued?
Data says.....yes.

2pid, look up "combat operations" and "support operations." Then get
back to me. They are military terms, it is true, but they really are
pretty self-explanotory. It is doubtful that Kennedy would have
crossed that line. His spoken words and his official policy support
that doubt.

Since the rapid escalation was in response to the anarchy created
by the Kennedy approved coup of Diem...is it likely he would have
declared that strategy a failure and pulled out?

I have never said "Kennedy would have pulled us out." This is a
strawman.

We know...McNamara says it was not discussed but thinks maybe.
Bobby Kennedy says they never discussed withdrawal.

Did they discuss secretly cooking things to ensure that we went in
without the public or Congress really knowing what was going on, and
without debate? Do they recall discussing disregarding and hiding a
DOD study that showed the COA of of intervention in Vietnam was
fatally flawed?

You seem to think Kennedy would have suddenly implemented a policy
never discussed.

No, again, this is a strawman. I have never said anything about
Kennedy pulling out.

We'll never know.

We *do* know what Johnson *did.* You can too, by reading the book!
Then you can talk like you know something about it. You can 'point'
out all the areas that McMaster has it wrong. That would put you in a
league of your own, 2pid. 'Think' of all the historians and senior
military officers you could show your 'chops' to! If you can 'point'
out how COL McMaster is a "pinko" at the same time, why, you may win a
Nobel prize, just like Gore did.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 22, 10:46 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com...

On Oct 22, 8:47 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

yo0u can tell them apart by the wimpy lacadaisical salutes

The RIP'r campaign ribbon is a dead giveaway.

2pid gets his ass handed to him.

How many time has this silly claim been made?

It's funny, too: every time it's made, it's true. LOL!

Meawhile this little discussion reveals your deep-seated
insecurity. You have to be right in your mind, and can't
accept a different pov about things that can never be known.

What this actually shows, 2pid, is your particular habit of adhering
to a set position, regardless of differing evidence that you not only
do not know, but refuse to look at. Um, kind of like a dog with a
bone.

This is why you keep getting your ass handed to you.

Luckily the real world isn't so myopic. There are things that
can't be known and different PsOV can exist..sucks for you
though.

Not at all, 2pid. I even ran in to a guy once who actually thought the
world was 5,000 years old. For real. Can you 'imagine'?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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?

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 do not. Therefore, further 'discussion' on this topic will
likely result in "circular" 'logic' which is very much like a dog
chasing its tail.

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.

It appears that you have given a cursory glance at #2. There you are
again, 2pid: #2.

[Clyde Slick]

Not at all, 2pid. I even ran in to a guy once who actually thought the
world was 5,000 years old. For real. Can you 'imagine'?

You can't even tell the difference between things that can be known
and things that cannot.

ScottW

that is known to be false.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 1:27 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
Not at all, 2pid. I even ran in to a guy once who actually thought the
world was 5,000 years old. For real. Can you 'imagine'?

You can't even tell the difference between things that can be known
and things that cannot.

ScottW

that is known to be false.

But you'd have to review the evidence...:-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 1:27 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
Not at all, 2pid. I even ran in to a guy once who actually thought the
world was 5,000 years old. For real. Can you 'imagine'?

You can't even tell the difference between things that can be known
and things that cannot.

ScottW

that is known to be false.

But you'd have to review the evidence...:-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 3:25 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in

On Oct 23, 1:27 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
Not at all, 2pid. I even ran in to a guy once who actually thought the
world was 5,000 years old. For real. Can you 'imagine'?

You can't even tell the difference between things that can be known
and things that cannot.

that is known to be false.

But you'd have to review the evidence...:-)

Sometimes all you have to do is understand the question.

Good 'point', 2pid. So why don't you?

Save a lot of irrelevant evidence chasing.

Indeed. If you've ever met one of these people, no amount of evidence
could possibly convince them that their beliefs are incorrect. Kind of
like you, 2pid... LOL!

[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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 10:39 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

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.

Another in a long list of absurd proclamations.

Really, 2pid. I saw someone say that you're an engineer. Is that true?

Here, a formula:

X + Y = Z

What are the values of each, 2pid?

Take your time.

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...

Perhaps IYO.... but when it's yours it suddenly isn't opinion
anymore...

Have you figured out the formula yet, 2pid?

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

aah yes...that elusive high-level decision... that thing that
can't be known till it is known...

Not at all. That thing that is readily available for study, if one is
willing to look.

I need the answer to the formula soon. It tells me how much sugar to
put in my still.

and show no
interest in learning about it. So WTF are you prattling about?

the high-level decision, of course.

I know. Yet you know nothing about it.

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.

He did more than that but you're obfuscating again..

Nope. The formula, please.

The question, is would Kennedy have committed divisions of troops in
direct combat roles.

Bingo.... what's the answer. I say yes...he would have.

You are so confidant, even lacking huge pieces of information. Do you
see why you'd be a disaster in command of men? LOL!.

Kennedy *might* have, but who cares.

That decision was made by Johnson, 2pid. Could Kennedy have reached
the same conclusion? Perhaps, but it is far less likely than it was
with Johnson, it was in no way "inevitable" and it would certainly not
have taken the form that it did. All of that matters, 2pid.

Hell, he might have even won by nuking Hanoi...but we'll never know.

I love it when you throw "Hell" in. It makes you just sound so damned
'manly'. You probably farted afterward just to affirm your 'manhood'
yet again.

Actually, the more important question

Bzzzzt.....wrong again.

I don't hear people saying it wasn't if Hitler invaded
Poland...it was how he did it that was the big issue.
Yeah...right...you're so logical.

Again, you miss the point, 2pid. And you're mixing things up in your
'mind'. Better try to stay focused.

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.

Bzzzzt wrong again. Nothing is ever exactly the same.
You're obfuscating again.

You're getting warmer. Good for you, 2pid! You're so close!

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.

Bzzz.pt..pt...pt....damn you broke my buzzer...it's overheated and worn out.
Anyway...irrelevant....again.

Oh, the letdown when someone is on the right track and derails
themselves...

No, 2pid, that is very relevant, but you wouldn't know that as you've
not seen the information. How can you declare something not relevant,
when you have no idea what it is? LOL!

Why don't you read _Dereliction of Duty_ and we can 'discuss' this
point further.

Because it is not a point I have in contention with you ...no matter
how desperately you want to make it so.

It's time for the values in the formula, 2pid. Your stupidity is
driving me to drink.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 11:08 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com...





On Oct 23, 10:39 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

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.

Another in a long list of absurd proclamations.

Really, 2pid. I saw someone say that you're an engineer. Is that true?

Here, a formula:

X + Y = Z

What are the values of each, 2pid?

Take your time.

Thanks for proving my point. You remain irrelevant.

What's the matter? Not smart enough to do it?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 11:35 am, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:08 am, "ScottW" wrote:





"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

On Oct 23, 10:39 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

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.

Another in a long list of absurd proclamations.

Really, 2pid. I saw someone say that you're an engineer. Is that true?

Here, a formula:

X + Y = Z

What are the values of each, 2pid?

Take your time.

Thanks for proving my point. You remain irrelevant.

What's the matter? Not smart enough to do it?

OK, 2pid, I'll help you out he

(Kennedy's actions, policies, and positions) + (Johnson's actions,
policies, and positions) = (combat troops deployed and mired in
Vietnam)

We know the value of "Z": combat troops were deployed and mired in
Vietnam.

We (actually, I) know the value of "Y": Johnson's actions, policies,
and positions.

We have only a partial record of "X": We know Kennedy's stated
positions and policies. He did not live long enough to act.

Would it be easier for you to solve for the value of "X" knowing the
other two values? How is total ignorance of one of the values (and one
of the two values that we absolutely know) helpful in solving the
problem?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 2:03 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com...





On Oct 24, 11:35 am, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:08 am, "ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

On Oct 23, 10:39 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

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.

Another in a long list of absurd proclamations.

Really, 2pid. I saw someone say that you're an engineer. Is that true?

Here, a formula:

X + Y = Z

What are the values of each, 2pid?

Take your time.

Thanks for proving my point. You remain irrelevant.

What's the matter? Not smart enough to do it?

OK, 2pid, I'll help you out he

(Kennedy's actions, policies, and positions) + (Johnson's actions,
policies, and positions) = (combat troops deployed and mired in
Vietnam)

We know the value of "Z": combat troops were deployed and mired in
Vietnam.

We (actually, I) know the value of "Y": Johnson's actions, policies,
and positions.

We have only a partial record of "X": We know Kennedy's stated
positions and policies. He did not live long enough to act.

Would it be easier for you to solve for the value of "X" knowing the
other two values? How is total ignorance of one of the values (and one
of the two values that we absolutely know) helpful in solving the
problem?

Even at math you suck.
If Z is fixed as you've done and X and Y are variables you
ask, what is X as Y goes to zero?
That's really dumb. I don't think you really want to know.

Even simple illustrations are over your head? Wow.

I didn't fix "Z", you did. That was fixed, IYO, by the Diem coup.

"X" or "Y" cannot go down to zero. That's impossible, which makes your
question irrelevant.

We've been 'discussing' "X". So, IYO, is understanding "Y" unimportant
in understanding "Z" (considering it's the only variable we know *for
sure*), and might it also be helpful to look at differences in "X" and
"Y" to see how things very likely would have been very different?

You see, 2pid, I have a different conclusion than you do. But you have
taken only part of one variable and "fixed" the conclusion.

I'm trying to communicate with you in a form that you can communicate
in. Complex English was proven inadequate long ago.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 3:26 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

On Oct 24, 2:03 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

On Oct 24, 11:35 am, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:08 am, "ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

On Oct 23, 10:39 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

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.

Another in a long list of absurd proclamations.

Really, 2pid. I saw someone say that you're an engineer. Is that true?

Here, a formula:

X + Y = Z

What are the values of each, 2pid?

Take your time.

Thanks for proving my point. You remain irrelevant.

What's the matter? Not smart enough to do it?

OK, 2pid, I'll help you out he

(Kennedy's actions, policies, and positions) + (Johnson's actions,
policies, and positions) = (combat troops deployed and mired in
Vietnam)

We know the value of "Z": combat troops were deployed and mired in
Vietnam.

We (actually, I) know the value of "Y": Johnson's actions, policies,
and positions.

We have only a partial record of "X": We know Kennedy's stated
positions and policies. He did not live long enough to act.

Would it be easier for you to solve for the value of "X" knowing the
other two values? How is total ignorance of one of the values (and one
of the two values that we absolutely know) helpful in solving the
problem?

Even at math you suck.
If Z is fixed as you've done and X and Y are variables you
ask, what is X as Y goes to zero?
That's really dumb. I don't think you really want to know.

Even simple illustrations are over your head? Wow.

I didn't fix "Z", you did. That was fixed, IYO, by the Diem coup.

Z was not variable...it was binary.

Things in real life are often not binary. Simply declaring something
so does not make it so.

We looked at one case.

"We" looked at more than one case. "You" looked at one case.

That case is closed...so is this boring and exhausted conversation.

It was a 'discussion'.