Its a well known fact NOW with documents that were released through the freedom of information act in the 90's,that Kennedy drew up a document two months before his assassination that there would be a complete withdrawel of vietnam by all military personal by 1965.
Proof of what his two closest aides Dave Powers and Kenny O'donnel have said over the years,that he told them he would go down as the most unpopular president ever for pulling out of Vietnam, but that he had to because he saw it as a lost war.
They said that he told them he could not do it till after the reelection in 64 because he had to look like he had a strong stance on communism.man you have been brainwashed.
Then there is this:
Be grateful JFK got elected in 1960 instead of Nixon
- Thread starter LA RAM FAN
- Start date
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 50,938
- 18,222
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #62
Way to avoid the facts.
Nice game of dodgeball there ignoring that Nixon in later years said he would have gone in and bombed them just like the military wanted Jfk to do but he wisely resisted.
Oh and Jfk was a man of world peace,contrary to many of the lies that have been spread over the years by our corrupt society and media,the missiles were already there when Jfk got in office.
They were put in place in Turkey under Eisenhower whom unlike vietnam,actually had a good reason for putting them there.Jfk and Kruschev had to make back channel meetings with each other because their governments were both doing a very good job of not carrying oput their directives.
A man of peace would not have increased the number of troops in Vietnam from 500 to 16,000. And that was from 500 'military advisors' to 16,000 combat troops.
I rest my case!
too naive, you only got half of your post right,those 16,000 co called troops were ADVISORS,kennedy never sent in combat troops,only advisors.
He increased the military advisors from 500 to 16,000 but AGAIN,thats all they were was ADVISORS.
JOHNSON sent in the combat troops.
Boy you sure are cluless about the vietnam war.Even this propaganda piece video i have at home where it defends the lies of the government and our corrupt school system that kenendy got us into vietnam instead of the truth that Johnson did,even THEY admit that combat troops were never sent into vietnam till Jonson took office,that kennedy only increased advisors.yeah you rest your case alright,it rests that you are clueless about the vietnam war as well as about the kennedy administration.
documents dont lie.here is the document he signed two months before his assassion that called for a complete withdrawel of vietnam by 1965.our game is over,you lose,checkmate.
JFK National Security Files
oh and your obviously ignorant that he resisted the policys of his military brass for all out war,policys that were drawn up by Eisenhower and nearly implemented in his last year in office.Policys Kennedy resisted but Johnson implemeted with the phony gulf of tonkin incident which both Mcnamara and the commander of that shitp have now come forward and admitted that they were never fired on.
Lbj got in and gave them their war they wanted reversing Jfk's policy to withdraw all military personal from vietnam completely by 1965.we know that to be true from documents from the kennedy administration that were found from a freedom of information act in the 90's. you should read the book AMERICAN TRAGEDY.it explains it all.
It is based on thousands of declassified documents from the Eisenhower,Kennedy,and Johnson administartions.this link talks a lillte about it.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...showtopic=6274
Here is also what I was posting earlier the document that proves he was going to completey pull us out of vietnam by 1965.It was no secret among the military.
In the pentagon papers back then according to members who served in the military at that time,it was all over the front pages of that paper with headlines reading-"Kennedy to pull out of vietnam by 1965."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...4&relPageId=51
Oh and I think your talking actually talking about the GULF OF TONKIN incidennt.Its well known that Kennedy only sent in advisors,he never sent in combat troops.
Johnson esculated the war and gave the military the war they wanted with the phony gulf of tonkin incident firing on an unarmed vietnames ship and when they fired back,the media lied about the event saying they fired at us first provoking the war.thats when LBj sent in the combat troops and got the war started.Even the commander of that ship has now come out and said that they fired unprovoked at the vietnamese ship first.
Last edited:
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 50,938
- 18,222
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #63
which proves I am correct and you are cluless.
I also see your playing dodgeball that had it been Nixon elected in 1960,he would have got us into world war 3 with the soviets.
Last edited:
Way to avoid the facts.
Oh and Jfk was a man of world peace,contrary to many of the lies that have been spread over the years by our corrupt society and media,the missiles were already there when Jfk got in office.
They were put in place in Turkey under Eisenhower whom unlike vietnam,actually had a good reason for putting them there.Jfk and Kruschev had to make back channel meetings with each other because their governments were both doing a very good job of not carrying oput their directives.
A man of peace would not have increased the number of troops in Vietnam from 500 to 16,000. And that was from 500 'military advisors' to 16,000 combat troops.
I rest my case!
too naive, you only got half of your post right,those 16,000 co called troops were ADVISORS,kennedy never sent in combat troops,only advisors.
JOHNSON sent in the combat troops.
yeah you rest your case alright,it rests that you are clueless about the vietnam war.
I will reopen my case.
On edit, I did say combat troops in my first post in error.
I do not consider increasing the number of TROOPS in Vietnam from 500 to 16,000 to be an act of a man of peace. You apparently do and I consider that extremely naïve.
Allow a couple of questions if you will.
Were any of these TROOPS armed, and were they allowed to actually shoot at anyone?
When a 4 star General was sent to Vietnam in Feb, 62 to replace a Col and change an advisory GROUP to a Military Assistance COMMAND was that the act of a man of peace?
Many of these TROOPS were Green Berets, and they are trained to be the best of the best COMBAT troops. They may have been acting as trainers, but they can and in many cases did engage in combat.
All you know about the Vietnam war and JFK is what lies that the liberal revisionists have written.
Last edited:
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
From what I read, you and JFK would both fuck his dog Checkers if given the chance.
which proves I am correct and you are cluless.
I also see your playing dodgeball that had it been Nixon elected in 1960,he would have got us into world war 3 with the soviets.
I will believe that when you post a link to that document.
And only a fool would believe that the Russians would have gone to war over Cuba.
Last edited:
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 50,938
- 18,222
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #68
too naive, you only got half of your post right,those 16,000 co called troops were ADVISORS,kennedy never sent in combat troops,only advisors.
JOHNSON sent in the combat troops.
yeah you rest your case alright,it rests that you are clueless about the vietnam war.
I will reopen my case.
On edit, I did say combat troops in my first post in error.
I do not consider increasing the number of TROOPS in Vietnam from 500 to 16,000 to be an act of a man of peace. You apparently do and I consider that extremely naïve.
Allow a couple of questions if you will.
Were any of these TROOPS armed, and were they allowed to actually shoot at anyone?
When a 4 star General was sent to Vietnam in Feb, 62 to replace a Col and change an advisory GROUP to a Military Assistance COMMAND was that the act of a man of peace?
Many of these TROOPS were Green Berets, and they are trained to be the best of the best COMBAT troops. They may have been acting as trainers, but they can and in many cases did engage in combat.
All you know about the Vietnam war and JFK is what lies that the liberal revisionists have written.
the FACTS are kennedy resisted his military brass for all out war like they wanted and had diologue with diem about establishing peaceful relations between the south and north,its all on record. thats the key word right there,ASSISTANCE.They ASSISTED the north vietcong and trained them how to defend themselves.the command post there was obviously just for protection against the vietcong if they attacked. AGAIN,jfk resisted the policys of the military brass for covert wars drawn up by Eisenhower which means STARTING them.Johnson did not.
Johnson got in and abondoned jfk's policys of diologue with them engaging in covert wars.
Rivisionists dont ignore FACTS like the document JFK signed in oct 63 calling for a complete withdrawel by 1965 which Johnson reversed two days later after the assassination with his document he signed.
Oh and even the LAMESTREAM media showed the casultys that occured under Kennedy when in sept 63 Walter Kronkite was interviewing him about the war and at the bottom left hand corner you see the words us casultys 82. thats a far cry from the 58,000 americans killed under those bastards Johnson and Nixon.
doesnt sound to me like Jfk had an insterest in the war drawing up a document to get out completely by 1965 with under a 100 casultys by the end of his presidency.if you were open minded,you would ask me about that book that documents and proves all this by David Kaiser called AMERICAN TRAGEDY,Eisenhower,Kennedy,Johnson and the origins of the vietnam war.AGAIN Kaiser went trough several thousand documents from the eisenhower,kennedy,and johnson administrations before he wrote that book.He backs up everything he says in his book.
He is far more credible than you are. here is that link AGAIN on his book.read it and get yourself educated.The Vietnam War and the Assassination of JFK - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum here is what the link says below since you appear too lazy to click on links.
In his book, The Military-Industrial Complex, Sidney Lens argues: “It is no accident that Washington has been almost universally on the side of conservative forces in the developing areas – Syngman Rhee in Korea, Chiang Kai-shek in China, the Shah in Iran, the militarists throughout Latin America, the king in Jordan, the king in Saudia Arabia, the military regimes in Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam. These conservative elements, to secure their own “vested interests,” have been willing to accept American military and economic support in return for concessions to American “vested interests”. Nor is it an accident that by and large the same legislators – Stennis, Russell, Rivers, Mundt, Goldwater, Tower, McClellan, to name a few – who are the fiercest advocates of military spending and military ventures, are also the fiercest opponents of social programs such as medicare, higher minimum wages, antipoverty, social security, and favourable trade union legislation.” (1)
In 1960 Kennedy presented himself as someone who held conservative views on both domestic and foreign issues. As Richard D. Mahoney points out in his book, Sons and Brothers: “As senator, Kennedy had zigzagged through the long obstacle course of civil rights legislation, siding in most cases, as a Ted Sorensen memo to Bobby proudly explained in December 1959, ‘with our friends in the South.’ He meant white friends.” (2)
Mahoney goes on to argue: “The most entrenched and skilled leaders of that majority in the Senate – McClellan of Arkansas, Eastland of Mississippi, Ervin of North Carolina, and Fulbright of Arkansas – were all vehement opponents of civil rights as well as close friends of Bobby Kennedy.” Kennedy admits in several interviews that were recorded as part of the Oral History Project, that he had several conversations with people like McClellan and Eastland during the campaign to assure them that the Kennedy administration would not promote the “civil rights issue”. (3)
Harris Wofford, Kennedy’s special assistant for civil rights, supports this view in his memoirs, Of Kennedys and Kings. He points out that Kennedy was forced into taking a stand on the issue because of the activities of Martin Luther King and pressure groups like the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). For example, Kennedy did all he could to get the Freedom Riders to call off their activities in 1961. (4)
Once in power, Kennedy appeared to support the foreign policy established by Dwight Eisenhower. The historian, David Kaiser, argues that Eisenhower’s policies “called for a military response to Communist aggression almost anywhere that it might occur”. Kaiser provides evidence that this strategy was “adopted by the State and Defense Departments in 1954-1956 and approved secretly by President Eisenhower.” (5)
This policy began with the overthrow by the CIA of President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in the summer of 1954. According to one historian: “The Agency had learned a lesson from the Guatemalan revolution in the early 1950s, when a nationalist government expropriated the land and the public service enterprises of U.S. monopolies to the benefit of the peasants and the population in general. This experience gave rise to a program of infiltrating agents into countries convulsed by communist ideas.” (6)
In the final months of his administration, Eisenhower was mainly concerned with trying to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. He was also worried about events in Laos and Vietnam. However, Kaiser convincingly argues that Kennedy subtly changed foreign policy after he gained office. “Ironically, while Eisenhower’s supposedly cautious approach in foreign policy had frequently been contrasted with his successors’ apparent aggressiveness, Kennedy actually spent much of his term resisting policies developed and approved under Eisenhower, both in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. He also had to deal with the legacy of the Eisenhower administration’s disastrous attempts to create a pro-Western rather than a neutral government in Laos – a policy he quickly reversed, thereby avoiding the need for American military intervention there.” (7)
Kaiser admits that he the Kennedy administration did increase the number of American military personnel in South Vietnam from 600 in 1960 to 17,500 in 1963. However, although he sincerely wanted to help the South Vietnamese government cope with the Viet Cong he rejected war as a way to do so. Kennedy’s view of America’s involvement in Southeast Asia was expressed clearly at his first ever press conference. When asked about Laos he expressed his intentions to help create “a peaceful country – an independent country not dominated by either side but concerned with the life of the people within the country.” (8) This was a marked departure from Eisenhower’s policy of supporting anti-communist military dictatorships in Southeast Asia and the Americas.
This analysis of Kennedy’s foreign policy is supported by two of his most important aides, Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers. In their book, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, they describe how on 19th January, 1960, Eisenhower briefed Kennedy on “various important items of unfinished business”. This included news about “the rebel force that was being trained by the CIA in Guatemala to invade Cuba.” O’Donnell and Powers claimed that: “Eisenhower urged him to keep on supporting this plan to overthrow Castro. But Eisenhower talked mostly about Laos, which he then regarded as the most dangerous trouble spot in Southeast Asia. He mentioned South Vietnam only as one of the nations that would fall into the hands of the Communists if the United States failed to maintain the anti-Communist regime in Laos.” Kennedy was shocked by what Eisenhower told him. He later told his two aides: “There he sat, telling me to get ready to put ground forces into Asia, the thing he himself had been carefully avoiding for the last eight years.” (9)
According to David Kaiser, it was not only the CIA and the Pentagon who wanted him to send troops to Laos and Vietnam. Members of his own administration, including Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, Alexis Johnson, McGeorge Bundy, Walt Rostow and Roswell Gilpatric, were also strongly in favour of Eisenhower’s policy of “intervention in remote areas backed by nuclear weapons”. (10)
Kaiser suggests the reason for this was that “these civilians were all from the GI generation, and to varying degrees they saw themselves as continuing the struggle against aggression and tyranny that had dominated their youth.” However, it has to be remembered that Johnson, McNamara and Gilpatric had all played an important role in the ensuring that General Dynamics got the TFX contract. (11) Is it possible that they had other motives for involving the United States in a long-drawn out war?
Kennedy continued with his policy of trying to develop “independent” Third World countries. In September, 1962, Souvanna Phouma became head of a new coalition government in Laos. This included the appointment of a left-leaning Quinim Pholsema as Foreign Minister. However, Kennedy found it impossible to persuade Ngo Dinh Diem to broaden his government in South Vietnam.
Kennedy continued to resist all attempts to persuade him to send troops to Vietnam. His policy was reinforced by the Bay of Pigs operation. Kennedy told his assistant secretary of state, Roger Hilsman: “The Bay of Pigs has taught me a number of things. One is not to trust generals or the CIA, and the second is that if the American people do not want to use American troops to remove a Communist regime 90 miles away from our coast, how can I ask them to use troops to remove a Communist regime 9,000 miles away? (12)
In April, 1962, Kennedy told McGeorge Bundy to “seize upon any favourable moment to reduce our involvement” in Vietnam. (13) In September, 1963, Robert Kennedy expressed similar views at a meeting of the National Security Council: “The first question was whether a Communist takeover could be successfully resisted with any government. If it could not, now was the time to get out of Vietnam entirely, rather than waiting.” (14)
The decision by Kennedy to withdraw from Vietnam was confirmed by John McCone, the director of the CIA: “When Kennedy took office you will recall that he won the election because he claimed that the Eisenhower administration had been weak on communism and weak in the treatment of Castro and so forth. So the first thing Kennedy did was to send a couple of men to Vietnam to survey the situation. They came back with the recommendation that the military assistance group be increased from 800 to 25,000. That was the start of our involvement. Kennedy, I believe, realized he'd made a mistake because 25,000 US military in a country such as South Vietnam means that the responsibility for the war flows to (the US military) and out of the hands of the South Vietnamese. So Kennedy, in the weeks prior to his death, realized that we had gone overboard and actually was in the process of withdrawing when he was killed and Johnson took over.” (15)
On 1st April, 1963, the attempt by Kennedy to create a all-party coalition government in Laos suffered a terrible blow when Quinim Pholsema, the left-wing Foreign Minister, was assassinated. As David Kaiser has pointed out: “In light of subsequent revelations about CIA assassination plots, this episode inevitably arouses some suspicion.” (16)
It would seem that Laos was not the only country where Kennedy was trying to develop a coalition government. According to Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartman, in the early months of 1963, a plan was put into action that would result in a palace coup led by “one of Castro’s inner circle, himself a well-known revolutionary hero.” Waldron and Hartman argue that the “coup leader would be part of the new Provisional Government in Cuba, along with a select group of Cuban exiles – approved by the Kennedys – who ranged from conservative to progressive.” (17)
Kennedy told Mike Mansfield in the spring of 1963 that he now agreed with his thinking “on the need for a complete military withdrawal from Vietnam”. After the meeting with Mansfield, Kennedy told Kenneth O’Donnell that when he pulled out of Vietnam in 1965: “I’ll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m re-elected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected.” (18)
In his book, Sons & Brothers, Richard D. Mahoney remarked: “Truman had lost his presidency over the “loss of China,” which in turn had touched off the anticommunist witch hunts by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Troubled as Kennedy was about slipping into the Asian land war, he temporized on the method of disengagement.” (19)
On 10th June, 1963, Kennedy made a commencement address at the American University. “In a speech written in the White House without Pentagon or State Department clearance, Kennedy called specifically, and for the first time, for a whole new attitude towards the soviet union and a greater effort for true peace.” (20)
Nine days later Kennedy discussed a new proposal by the State Department to take overt military action against North Vietnam. Kennedy was told that the Pentagon wanted to start bombing North Vietnam and the mining of North Vietnamese ports. (21)
As David Kaiser points out in American Tragedy, Kennedy refused to approve this plan: “Ever since assuming the Presidency, Kennedy had received a long series of proposals for war in Southeast Asia from the State and Defence Departments. Rejecting them all, he had established the goals of a neutral regime in Laos and an effort to assist the South Vietnamese against the Viet Cong.” (22)
Kennedy continued to have problems from the leaders of the military. On 9th July, 1963, General Maxwell Taylor explained to the National Security Council that individual Joint Chiefs did not believe that an atmospheric test ban would serve the nation well. Sixteen days later, Averell Harriman, Andrei Gromyko and Lord Hailsham signed the atmospheric test ban in Moscow.
On 14th August, Diem was informed that the U.S. government would be unable to continue their present relationship if Diem did not issue a statement reaffirming a conciliatory policy towards the Buddhists and other critics of his regime. Ten days later, Ted Szulc of the New York Times reported that “policy planners in Washington” had reached the stage where they would prefer a military junta in South Vietnam to a government ruled by Diem. (23)
Kennedy also gave the order for the withdrawal of 1,000 American personnel by the end of 1963. The plan involved taking the men out in four increments, in order to achieve maximum press coverage. General Maxwell Taylor spoke out against this policy and argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff believed no withdrawal of troops should take place “until the political and religious tensions now confronting the government of South Vietnam have eased.” (24)
In an interview with Walter Cronkite on 2nd September, Kennedy clearly stated his policy on Vietnam: “I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it.” Kennedy then went on to criticize Diem’s “repressions against the Buddhists”. (25)
On 9th September, Henry Cabot Lodge met with Diem and threatened him that aid would be cut-off unless Ngo Dinh Nhu left his government. Yet according to a New York Times story, the CIA continued to back Nhu. This included John Richardson, the Saigon CIA station chief disbursing a regular monthly payment of $250,000 to Nhu and his men. (26) Four days later, Lodge suggested that Richardson should be ordered back to Washington as “he symbolized long-standing American support for Nhu.” John McCone defended Richardson and objected to the idea that he should be replaced by someone like Edward Lansdale.
Kennedy met with Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor on 2nd October, 1963. Kennedy told McNamara to announce to the press the immediate withdrawal of one thousand soldiers from Vietnam. Kennedy added that he would “probably withdraw all American forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965”. When McNamara was leaving the meeting to talk to the white house reporters, Kennedy called to him: “And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots too.” In his statement to the press McNamara softened the President’s views by stating that in his judgment “the major part of the U.S. military task” in Vietnam could be “completed by the end of 1965.” (27)
Diem and Nhu were murdered on 1st November, 1963. The news reached Kennedy the following day. According to David Kaiser, Kennedy “left the room in shock”. (28) Despite this news, Kennedy made no move to change or cancel his troop reduction. As his aides, Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers pointed out: “The collapse of the Diem government and the deaths of its dictatorial leaders made the President only more skeptical of our military advice from Saigon and more determined to pull out of the Vietnam War.” (29)
It has been suggested by William Colby, Frederick Nolting, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon that Kennedy had ordered Diem’s assassination. There is no evidence for this view. In fact, the behaviour of Diem was giving Kennedy a good excuse to withdraw support for his government. Kennedy knew that Diem was incapable of providing a coalition government that would gain the support of the South Vietnamese people. Robert Kennedy argued against the assassination of Diem as it would leave the government in the “hands of one man that we don’t know very well.” (30) The Kennedy brothers were aware that the man who took control in South Vietnam would probably be no better than Diem at establishing a coalition government. The assassination of Diem was therefore not part of Kennedy’s policy to withdraw from Vietnam.
Notes
1. Stanley Lens, The Military-Industrial Complex, 1970 (page 146)
2. Richard D. Mahoney, Sons and Brothers, 1999 (page 117)
3. Edwin Guthman and Jeffrey Shulman (ed.), Robert Kennedy in his Own Words, 1988
4. Harris Wofford, Of Kennedy and Kings, 1980 (pages 103-200)
5. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 2)
6. Fabian Escalante, CIA Covert Operations 1959-62: The Cuba Project, 2004 (page 12)
7. David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, 2000 (page 2)
8. Howard W. Chase and Allen H. Lerman, Kennedy and the Press: The News Conferences, 1965 (page 25)
9. Kenneth P. O’Donnell & David F. Powers, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald
Last edited:
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 50,938
- 18,222
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #69
I just did,you ignored it and are obviously in denial that they would have gone to war.they wouldnt just stand by and watch america bomb cuba.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Well, he was a friendly little pup.
You mean to tell me, you've never dated out of your species?
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 50,938
- 18,222
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #71
this is from another poster i came across,who just like David Kaiser,has done his homework very well.Im impressed with him.He knows his stuff.
Eisenhower got us into Vietnam. People blame Johnson mostly because he escalated the war, but we were already involved there when he became president.
Nixon got us out, but Nixon was elected on the basis of his 'secret' plan to end the war. During the 1968 campaign he said he knew how to end it, but couldn't give the details for fear of tipping his hand to the enemy.
According to the memoirs of his own chief of staff, H.R. Haldemann, Nixon's plan all along was simply to declare victory and pull out. He held a cabinet meeting soon after his inauguration in 1969 and asked his cabinet members to comment. Henry Kissinger, then only a national security adviser, told him if he ended the war then he would cause a recession from the cutback in federal spending. Kissinger convinced Nixon to keep the war going another 4 years just so a recession wouldn't threaten his second term.
So in the end, more than half of our 50,000 US deaths, more than a million Vietnamise deaths, and by our own CIA's estimate, more than 600,000 deaths in Cambodia (-before- the rise of Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge and all the 'killing fields' stuff), Nixon caused all that just to get his sorry a** re-elected to a second term. Which he couldn't even finish.
Also it was found that Nixon's people had been in touch with the North Vietnamise peace negotiators and had convinced them not to sign the treaty with Johnson. It's super illegal for a presidential campaign to influence foreign policy. Reagan's campaign did it too, in Iran.
__________________
must see video.
Kennedy sent peace keeping troops in and Johnson committed ground troops..
this is from a discussion of asking who got us in vietnam and this poster nailed it as well.
Ike in, Johnson provoked the invasion
Eisenhower got us into Vietnam. People blame Johnson mostly because he escalated the war, but we were already involved there when he became president.
Nixon got us out, but Nixon was elected on the basis of his 'secret' plan to end the war. During the 1968 campaign he said he knew how to end it, but couldn't give the details for fear of tipping his hand to the enemy.
According to the memoirs of his own chief of staff, H.R. Haldemann, Nixon's plan all along was simply to declare victory and pull out. He held a cabinet meeting soon after his inauguration in 1969 and asked his cabinet members to comment. Henry Kissinger, then only a national security adviser, told him if he ended the war then he would cause a recession from the cutback in federal spending. Kissinger convinced Nixon to keep the war going another 4 years just so a recession wouldn't threaten his second term.
So in the end, more than half of our 50,000 US deaths, more than a million Vietnamise deaths, and by our own CIA's estimate, more than 600,000 deaths in Cambodia (-before- the rise of Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge and all the 'killing fields' stuff), Nixon caused all that just to get his sorry a** re-elected to a second term. Which he couldn't even finish.
Also it was found that Nixon's people had been in touch with the North Vietnamise peace negotiators and had convinced them not to sign the treaty with Johnson. It's super illegal for a presidential campaign to influence foreign policy. Reagan's campaign did it too, in Iran.
__________________
must see video.
Kennedy sent peace keeping troops in and Johnson committed ground troops..
this is from a discussion of asking who got us in vietnam and this poster nailed it as well.
Ike in, Johnson provoked the invasion
Last edited:
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 50,938
- 18,222
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #72
STILL MORE ON EISENHOWER,KENNEDY,JOhNSON,NIXON AND THE VIETNAM WAR.
Eisenhower 1953-1961
Eisenhower was the first president to go head first into the Vietnam conflicts. Eisenhower did not support the Geneva Accords signed by France and Vietnam in the summer of 1954. The Accord made the 17th parallel dividing the country of Vietnam to north and south section until two years when they would hold a free election for all of the country. Eisenhower and his secretary of state John Foster Dulles believed that the agreement gave the communist too much power in the north. Instead Eisenhower decided to create the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). This treatyÂ’s purpose was to stop any more communist influence in Southeast Asia. Using the SEATO as a cover, Eisenhower started to help build a new nation in South Vietnam. In 1955 GVN was born, the government of the republic of Vietnam, the leader being Ngo Dinh Diem, after a landslide election.
Soon after Diem claimed his country was under attack from communist. In 1957 the Vietnam War began. Diem imprisoned all those he viewed as being suspected communist and his people became outraged, administering protest and demonstrations.
From 1956-1960, North Vietnam did all it could to put political pressure on DiemÂ’s regime, gathering followers in the south to overthrow him. Since the false imprisonments it was not hard to rally rural areas in the south. This was how the National Liberation Front (NFL) was created.
Kennedy 1961-1963
By 1961 Kennedy was now in office and he had a new team to investigate the conditions in South Vietnam. This investigation was known as the “December 1961 White Papers”. The content in the white paper was basically a cry for more aid to Vietnam. Kennedy decided to send more advisers and machinery but would not send troops. In 1963 Kennedy was assassinated.
Lyndon B. Johnson 1963-1969
This was the president in office when the Gulf of Tonkin attack occurred. Two U.S ships were attacked off the coast of Vietnam in neutral water. The first attack was legitimate but no one knows if the second actually occurred. Johnson decided to use this situation as a chance to cover up the resolution that gave Johnson more war powers. This was called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The resolution was a series of air strikes against the North Vietnam territory. In 1965, the NFL attacked U.S. bases in South Vietnam and Johnson ordered a bombing mission called Operation Rolling Thunder. Johnson was the one who sent the first combat troops to Vietnam. JohnsonÂ’s hope was that the North Vietnam would get tired of the war and want peace talks. The draft was instituted and anti-war movements reached an extreme. Protests on campuses erupted everywhere, Kent State being one of them.
In 1968 the North Vietnam army led a series of attacks against major cities in South Vietnam known as the Tet Offensive, to force American to the bargaining table. Although South Vietnam and American forces pushed the North Vietnam army out of the cities, it was still a political loss to America and South Vietnam. Johnson left his office when time was up in disgrace. Making it known he will not accept the democratic renomination.
Richard Nixon 1969-1974
Nixon claimed he had a secret plan to the war and won the election. He used a process called “Vietnamization”. This was a method of training the South Vietnam troops to fight and then slowly pulling American troops out of Vietnam. During Nixon’s years the war was brought into Cambodia and Lao to try to find pockets of communist along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Finally a peace talk emerged but South Vietnam would not settle. Leaving the North Vietnam to intensify its position this was retaliated by the “Christmas Bombing”. In January 1973 a peace treaty was signed ending the war for Americans but not for South Vietnam. North Vietnam took over the south after the American troops left putting an end to the Vietnam War.
Johnson is the one who always gets the real blame. What a shame because
Nixon expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia and his secret plan was lame; so he gets my vote for making the situation worse.
Eisenhower 1953-1961
Eisenhower was the first president to go head first into the Vietnam conflicts. Eisenhower did not support the Geneva Accords signed by France and Vietnam in the summer of 1954. The Accord made the 17th parallel dividing the country of Vietnam to north and south section until two years when they would hold a free election for all of the country. Eisenhower and his secretary of state John Foster Dulles believed that the agreement gave the communist too much power in the north. Instead Eisenhower decided to create the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). This treatyÂ’s purpose was to stop any more communist influence in Southeast Asia. Using the SEATO as a cover, Eisenhower started to help build a new nation in South Vietnam. In 1955 GVN was born, the government of the republic of Vietnam, the leader being Ngo Dinh Diem, after a landslide election.
Soon after Diem claimed his country was under attack from communist. In 1957 the Vietnam War began. Diem imprisoned all those he viewed as being suspected communist and his people became outraged, administering protest and demonstrations.
From 1956-1960, North Vietnam did all it could to put political pressure on DiemÂ’s regime, gathering followers in the south to overthrow him. Since the false imprisonments it was not hard to rally rural areas in the south. This was how the National Liberation Front (NFL) was created.
Kennedy 1961-1963
By 1961 Kennedy was now in office and he had a new team to investigate the conditions in South Vietnam. This investigation was known as the “December 1961 White Papers”. The content in the white paper was basically a cry for more aid to Vietnam. Kennedy decided to send more advisers and machinery but would not send troops. In 1963 Kennedy was assassinated.
Lyndon B. Johnson 1963-1969
This was the president in office when the Gulf of Tonkin attack occurred. Two U.S ships were attacked off the coast of Vietnam in neutral water. The first attack was legitimate but no one knows if the second actually occurred. Johnson decided to use this situation as a chance to cover up the resolution that gave Johnson more war powers. This was called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The resolution was a series of air strikes against the North Vietnam territory. In 1965, the NFL attacked U.S. bases in South Vietnam and Johnson ordered a bombing mission called Operation Rolling Thunder. Johnson was the one who sent the first combat troops to Vietnam. JohnsonÂ’s hope was that the North Vietnam would get tired of the war and want peace talks. The draft was instituted and anti-war movements reached an extreme. Protests on campuses erupted everywhere, Kent State being one of them.
In 1968 the North Vietnam army led a series of attacks against major cities in South Vietnam known as the Tet Offensive, to force American to the bargaining table. Although South Vietnam and American forces pushed the North Vietnam army out of the cities, it was still a political loss to America and South Vietnam. Johnson left his office when time was up in disgrace. Making it known he will not accept the democratic renomination.
Richard Nixon 1969-1974
Nixon claimed he had a secret plan to the war and won the election. He used a process called “Vietnamization”. This was a method of training the South Vietnam troops to fight and then slowly pulling American troops out of Vietnam. During Nixon’s years the war was brought into Cambodia and Lao to try to find pockets of communist along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Finally a peace talk emerged but South Vietnam would not settle. Leaving the North Vietnam to intensify its position this was retaliated by the “Christmas Bombing”. In January 1973 a peace treaty was signed ending the war for Americans but not for South Vietnam. North Vietnam took over the south after the American troops left putting an end to the Vietnam War.
Johnson is the one who always gets the real blame. What a shame because
Nixon expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia and his secret plan was lame; so he gets my vote for making the situation worse.
LA RAM FAN
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2008
- 50,938
- 18,222
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #73
still more proof Ike got us into vietnam and JFK'S policys were different than his,believing in peaceful resolutions instead of a military combat presence.
Samuel Ebenreiter : JFK's Positive Impact on American Policies in Vietnam
He CLEARLY was against sending in combat troops.major difference between increasing ADVISORS who were there just to defend themseleves and to train the south vietnamese and sending in combat troops like Johnson did.
Thank god Dick Nixon was not elected president in 1960 because he was so immature back then,that he not only would have bombed cuba getting us into world war three with the soviets,"remember we were just a a hairs length away from a nuclear war with them even with Kennedy NOT bombing cuba like his military brass wanted him to do,something Nixon would have obliged them on." But while vice president under Ike,he ALSO tried to get IKE to NUKE the north vietnamese in vietnam.Eisenhowerr smartlyy though,was wise enough to not listen to him and knew better thank god.
There were some significant differences between the Eisenhower administration and that of JFK's. One major one was the importance placed on Laos. As Kennedy was taking over he met with Eisenhower and his counselors to talk about the situation. Eisenhower believed that if the U.S. gave up Laos it would topple the rest of Southeast Asia, and thus his administration attempted to model a pro-Western government in Laos. Although Kennedy agreed about the importance of Laos, he disagreed with attempting to turn Laos into a pro-Western government, mostly because of the weak military presence there. He simply wanted a peaceful resolution, free of war. He said in a Presidential news conference in March of 1961 that he wanted to "make it clear to the American people and to all of the world that all we want in Laos is peace and not war, a truly neutral government and not a cold war pawn, a settlement concluded at the conference table and not on the battle field."[5] Rather than listen to the Eisenhower administration or his own Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wanted to use U.S. military intervention and nuclear weapons, Kennedy negotiated a solution to the conflict in Laos, agreeing to a neutral Laotian government and obtaining Nikita Khrushchev and Ho Chi Mihn's cooperation in letting Laos go.[6] Even with all the differences there were some obvious similarities between the administrations. The administrations preceding Kennedy supported sending aid to Vietnam, whether financial or non-combat military forces. Kennedy continued this trend, while gradually escalating the amount of support, yet continuing the idea of refusing to send combat troops. He reiterated his stance against sending combat troops to Vietnam in a News Conference in February of 1962. He stated, "we have not sent combat troops there, although the training missions that we have there have been instructed that if they are fired upon they are, of course, to fire back, to protect themselves, but we have not sent combat troops, in the generally understood sense of the word."[7]
Samuel Ebenreiter : JFK's Positive Impact on American Policies in Vietnam
He CLEARLY was against sending in combat troops.major difference between increasing ADVISORS who were there just to defend themseleves and to train the south vietnamese and sending in combat troops like Johnson did.
Thank god Dick Nixon was not elected president in 1960 because he was so immature back then,that he not only would have bombed cuba getting us into world war three with the soviets,"remember we were just a a hairs length away from a nuclear war with them even with Kennedy NOT bombing cuba like his military brass wanted him to do,something Nixon would have obliged them on." But while vice president under Ike,he ALSO tried to get IKE to NUKE the north vietnamese in vietnam.Eisenhowerr smartlyy though,was wise enough to not listen to him and knew better thank god.
There were some significant differences between the Eisenhower administration and that of JFK's. One major one was the importance placed on Laos. As Kennedy was taking over he met with Eisenhower and his counselors to talk about the situation. Eisenhower believed that if the U.S. gave up Laos it would topple the rest of Southeast Asia, and thus his administration attempted to model a pro-Western government in Laos. Although Kennedy agreed about the importance of Laos, he disagreed with attempting to turn Laos into a pro-Western government, mostly because of the weak military presence there. He simply wanted a peaceful resolution, free of war. He said in a Presidential news conference in March of 1961 that he wanted to "make it clear to the American people and to all of the world that all we want in Laos is peace and not war, a truly neutral government and not a cold war pawn, a settlement concluded at the conference table and not on the battle field."[5] Rather than listen to the Eisenhower administration or his own Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wanted to use U.S. military intervention and nuclear weapons, Kennedy negotiated a solution to the conflict in Laos, agreeing to a neutral Laotian government and obtaining Nikita Khrushchev and Ho Chi Mihn's cooperation in letting Laos go.[6] Even with all the differences there were some obvious similarities between the administrations. The administrations preceding Kennedy supported sending aid to Vietnam, whether financial or non-combat military forces. Kennedy continued this trend, while gradually escalating the amount of support, yet continuing the idea of refusing to send combat troops. He reiterated his stance against sending combat troops to Vietnam in a News Conference in February of 1962. He stated, "we have not sent combat troops there, although the training missions that we have there have been instructed that if they are fired upon they are, of course, to fire back, to protect themselves, but we have not sent combat troops, in the generally understood sense of the word."[7]
Last edited:
Sunshine
Trust the pie.
- Dec 17, 2009
- 19,377
- 3,398
- 183
OK, so I am old enough to remember all this stuff including that election. Kennedy had to have Texas to win that election. That is why he chose Johnson as a running mate. Once elected Kennedy started cranking down our involvement in Vietnam. Then he went to Dallas and was assassinated. Think about it. He was assassinated in Dallas. Then his alleged assassin was killed. I do remember Lyndon Johnson cranking that war up, contrary to what Kennedy had started. My big brother was draft age, so that was an issue at our house. At the time I was in high school and in general far more interested in boys and cheerleading than I was in politics. Many years later I would learn that LBJ had considerable financial interest in the equipment that was being used in that war. More than enough motive for him to lure JFK to Dallas and have him killed.
Nixon? I recall after he was elected the heat was on to get us out of Vietnam. I remember one speech in which Nixon said we had to stay in Vietnam to 'save face' because that was important in the east. Save face. LOL. Like that could have ever happened. I do like the military channel and there was a show on last week about Sun TZy and The Art of War. According to that, we were fighting in Vietnam using chess as our model and they were using Tszu's model, which would ensure that we could never win in Vietnam. Also, I read some years later that China was supplying men for to bolster the communist forces. Of course Nixon, I believe, ended it, but he did a serious about face because it was not his intent when he was elected.
Sunshine
Trust the pie.
- Dec 17, 2009
- 19,377
- 3,398
- 183
oh brother, we would have had world war three had it been Dick Nixon in office .
why do people keep playing dodgeball not even bothering to read the post just what the thread title says and only come on with opinions instead of facts?
History has been kind to Nixon. I don't believe that kindness is well deserved.
Sunshine
Trust the pie.
- Dec 17, 2009
- 19,377
- 3,398
- 183
Its a well known fact NOW with documents that were released through the freedom of information act in the 90's,that Kennedy drew up a document two months before his assassination that there would be a complete withdrawel of vietnam by all military personal by 1965.
Thus the assassination. People with a huge financial interest in that war were NOT going to let that happen.
Thus the assassination. People with a huge financial interest in that war were NOT going to let that happen.
Sunshine
Trust the pie.
- Dec 17, 2009
- 19,377
- 3,398
- 183
I definitely think Ike had his finger on the pulse of America when he said this. I also think the organization he started, People to People International, has been a step toward getting people to want peace. I have traveled with PTPI myself and it is a worthwhile organization.
hangover
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2013
- 5,734
- 642
- 190
So many issues to cover on this thread.
First, even cons know for a fact that Nixon was as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Ford swept it all under the rug with a pardon for his crimes. If he would have had to pay for his crimes, Raygun would never have become POTUS.
Second, if the truth was ever told about the JFK assassination, it would have been revealed that he was killed because he was going to END the Vietnam war, and the industrial military complex was making too much money on that war to let it end.
Third, Vasili Arkhipov, a Soviet submarine officer during the Bay of Pigs, saved the world from nuclear war, by refusing to launch a nuclear bomb. So we all owe our lives to him. Had he launched that nuke, none of us would be here today.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
First, even cons know for a fact that Nixon was as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Ford swept it all under the rug with a pardon for his crimes. If he would have had to pay for his crimes, Raygun would never have become POTUS.
Second, if the truth was ever told about the JFK assassination, it would have been revealed that he was killed because he was going to END the Vietnam war, and the industrial military complex was making too much money on that war to let it end.
Third, Vasili Arkhipov, a Soviet submarine officer during the Bay of Pigs, saved the world from nuclear war, by refusing to launch a nuclear bomb. So we all owe our lives to him. Had he launched that nuke, none of us would be here today.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
Sunshine
Trust the pie.
- Dec 17, 2009
- 19,377
- 3,398
- 183
You don't know that.
hangover
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2013
- 5,734
- 642
- 190
Yeah, and Fukashima is clean energy...BWAH HA HA HA HA!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Everyone Needs to Chill Out - These Animal Videos Will Take Your Worries Away- Started by HikerGuy83
- Replies: 6
-
-
