Our Kennedy.

[Oldstyle]

The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to train the South Vietnamese. Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground. THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!

 

[Oldstyle]

When Kennedy gives his little speeches about the necessity for the South Vietnamese to start fighting their "own" war it's rather ironic since it was KENNEDY who had the US military taking on a combat role. Until Kennedy...the South Vietnamese WERE fighting their own war!

 

[Bfgrn]

You keep talking about the plan to withdraw as if it was somehow written in stone and couldn't change in any way...which is complete and utter fantasy on your part! The withdrawal plan was TOTALLY BASED upon military progress! It was based on wishful thinking...wishful thinking that the war in South Vietnam was going so well that the South Vietnamese could take over the fight and keep the communists at bay. Despite your claim to the contrary, under Kennedy the US had shouldered a much larger portion of the actual fighting because the South Vietnamese were basically incompetent. The fact is, Kennedy had dramatically escalated the US's involvement in combat and the South Vietnamese were becoming increasingly dependent on us to fight the communists for them. Robert McNamara's rewriting of history decades later is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to paint what both he AND Kennedy did in Vietnam in a more favorable light.

The policy was written in stone until someone changed it. Kennedy DIDN'T. Johnson DID. Why is that so hard to understand?

McNamara placed a very UN-favorable light upon himself.

So your contention is that it was impossible for Kennedy to change the policy on troop withdrawals? Is that what you're saying? I think we both know that's not the case. Kennedy very well may not have withdrawn the initial thousand troops in 1963. He may not have withdrawn the rest before 1965. He was still steadfast in his determination to stem the spread of communism as is evident in the speech that he would have given in Dallas the very day that he was assassinated.

You still haven't shown me how a total withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam by Kennedy correlates with his pledge to support our allies in a fight against the evils of communism. How does Kennedy walk away from Vietnam (something you've declared was set in stone) when to do so would have essentially been a surrender of South East Asia to the communists at the height of the Cold War? How does he do THAT?

You keep changing the terms here.

My contention is that Kennedy DIDN'T change the policy on troop withdrawals...JOHNSON DID.

The official policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (troops WERE withdrawn) and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

Withdrawal plan were NOT totally based upon military progress. From October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Even rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, in response to NSAM 263. Kennedy STILL didn't change the policy.

Diem was overthrown November 1, 1963, Kennedy STILL didn't change the policy.

Kennedy DIDN'T change the policy on troop withdrawals...JOHNSON DID.

 

[Bfgrn]

When Kennedy gives his little speeches about the necessity for the South Vietnamese to start fighting their "own" war it's rather ironic since it was KENNEDY who had the US military taking on a combat role. Until Kennedy...the South Vietnamese WERE fighting their own war!

All the MORE reason to withdraw.

 

[Bfgrn]

The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to train the South Vietnamese. Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground. THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!

The 2 biggest decisions that entangled America in Vietnam were made by Eisenhower and Johnson.

US Involvement in Vietnam: the first turning point

At the international conference convened to discuss French Indochina at Geneva in May 1954, the French exit was formalised. Vietnam was temporarily divided, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the north and the Emperor Bao Dai in control of the south. The Geneva Accords declared that there were to be nationwide elections leading to reunification of Vietnam in 1956. However, US intervention ensured that this ‘temporary division’ was to last for more than 20 years.

The United States refused to sign the Geneva Accords and moved to defy them within weeks. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, organised allies such as Britain in the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The SEATO signatories agreed to protect South Vietnam, in defiance of the Geneva Accords, which had forbidden the Vietnamese from entering into foreign alliances or to allow foreign troops in Vietnam.

The Eisenhower administration encouraged Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister, and then proceeded to engage in ‘nation building’. Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid a wholly Communist Vietnam, the US had sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam.

Within weeks of Geneva, Eisenhower arranged to help Diem set up South Vietnam. He sent General ‘Lightning Joe’ Collins and created MAAG (the Military Assistance Advisory Group) to assist in the process. The US also helped and encouraged Diem to squeeze out Bao Dai.

The French exit meant that Eisenhower could have dropped Truman's commitment in Vietnam.

 

[Sallow]

The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to train the South Vietnamese. Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground. THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!

You are really something else.

Eisenhower stopped a general election that would have left Ho Chi Minh in power.

There would not have even BEEN a war had that election taken place.

Vietnam was effectively stabbed in the back after being a loyal ally during WWII.

 

[Oldstyle]

The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to train the South Vietnamese. Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground. THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!

The 2 biggest decisions that entangled America in Vietnam were made by Eisenhower and Johnson.

US Involvement in Vietnam: the first turning point

At the international conference convened to discuss French Indochina at Geneva in May 1954, the French exit was formalised. Vietnam was temporarily divided, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the north and the Emperor Bao Dai in control of the south. The Geneva Accords declared that there were to be nationwide elections leading to reunification of Vietnam in 1956. However, US intervention ensured that this ‘temporary division’ was to last for more than 20 years.

The United States refused to sign the Geneva Accords and moved to defy them within weeks. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, organised allies such as Britain in the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The SEATO signatories agreed to protect South Vietnam, in defiance of the Geneva Accords, which had forbidden the Vietnamese from entering into foreign alliances or to allow foreign troops in Vietnam.

The Eisenhower administration encouraged Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister, and then proceeded to engage in ‘nation building’. Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid a wholly Communist Vietnam, the US had sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam.

Within weeks of Geneva, Eisenhower arranged to help Diem set up South Vietnam. He sent General ‘Lightning Joe’ Collins and created MAAG (the Military Assistance Advisory Group) to assist in the process. The US also helped and encouraged Diem to squeeze out Bao Dai.

The French exit meant that Eisenhower could have dropped Truman's commitment in Vietnam.

"Despite all the doubts, the Eisenhower administration stuck with Diem. By the end of Eisenhower's presidency, there were nearly 1,000 US advisers helping Diem and his armed forces. Under President Kennedy, the number of advisers rocketed to around 16,000, which renders suspect claims that, had he lived, Kennedy would have got out of Vietnam."

That's from YOUR cited source, Bfgrn! Viv Saunders is not only spot on about how the US got into Vietnam but she's spot on when she's skeptical about Kennedy getting us OUT!

Gee, you cite an article to deflect blame from Kennedy but purposely leave out the one paragraph that actually addresses your claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn all our troops by 1965? And why do you do that? Because the author doesn't agree with you! That's cherry picking at it's finest...

 

[Oldstyle]

The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to train the South Vietnamese. Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground. THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!

You are really something else.

Eisenhower stopped a general election that would have left Ho Chi Minh in power.

There would not have even BEEN a war had that election taken place.

Vietnam was effectively stabbed in the back after being a loyal ally during WWII.

Eisenhower refused to allow an election to take place that would have PUT Ho Chi Minh in power. Vietnam became a pawn in the Cold War...just as Korea had become...just as Eastern Europe had become. Eisenhower refused to let South Vietnam go over to the communists because it was the policy of the United States to not allow the further spread of communism...a policy that was much more "iron clad" than JFK's later plan to withdraw troops which is why the author of Bfgrn's cited article doubts Kennedy would have withdrawn those troops.

 

[TooTall]

Go back.

Re-read the post.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Oh, I think I do. You've been exuding butthurt from the moment I knocked your "Kennedy isn't a conservative" argument out of the park.

Romney has a body on his record? Link?

So does Laura Bush? Also, link?

Okay..first off..

I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.

That continues to this day.

Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.

Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.

You can google that too.

You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.

Dope.

And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.

Romney and Laura Bush both had car accidents. How long was it before they reported the accident and how long was it before Kennedy reported the accident he had? One more question. Were any of them intoxicated when they had the accident? Just curious.

 

[TooTall]

The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to train the South Vietnamese. Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground. THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!

You are really something else.

Eisenhower stopped a general election that would have left Ho Chi Minh in power.

There would not have even BEEN a war had that election taken place.

Vietnam was effectively stabbed in the back after being a loyal ally during WWII.

Ike was merely honoring the intent of the SEATO treaty that the US and our allies signed. It was a good idea to honor international treaties then, and should be today as well.

 

[Bfgrn]

The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to train the South Vietnamese. Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground. THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!

The 2 biggest decisions that entangled America in Vietnam were made by Eisenhower and Johnson.

US Involvement in Vietnam: the first turning point

At the international conference convened to discuss French Indochina at Geneva in May 1954, the French exit was formalised. Vietnam was temporarily divided, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the north and the Emperor Bao Dai in control of the south. The Geneva Accords declared that there were to be nationwide elections leading to reunification of Vietnam in 1956. However, US intervention ensured that this ‘temporary division’ was to last for more than 20 years.

The United States refused to sign the Geneva Accords and moved to defy them within weeks. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, organised allies such as Britain in the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The SEATO signatories agreed to protect South Vietnam, in defiance of the Geneva Accords, which had forbidden the Vietnamese from entering into foreign alliances or to allow foreign troops in Vietnam.

The Eisenhower administration encouraged Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister, and then proceeded to engage in ‘nation building’. Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid a wholly Communist Vietnam, the US had sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam.

Within weeks of Geneva, Eisenhower arranged to help Diem set up South Vietnam. He sent General ‘Lightning Joe’ Collins and created MAAG (the Military Assistance Advisory Group) to assist in the process. The US also helped and encouraged Diem to squeeze out Bao Dai.

The French exit meant that Eisenhower could have dropped Truman's commitment in Vietnam.

"Despite all the doubts, the Eisenhower administration stuck with Diem. By the end of Eisenhower's presidency, there were nearly 1,000 US advisers helping Diem and his armed forces. Under President Kennedy, the number of advisers rocketed to around 16,000, which renders suspect claims that, had he lived, Kennedy would have got out of Vietnam."

That's from YOUR cited source, Bfgrn! Viv Saunders is not only spot on about how the US got into Vietnam but she's spot on when she's skeptical about Kennedy getting us OUT!

Gee, you cite an article to deflect blame from Kennedy but purposely leave out the one paragraph that actually addresses your claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn all our troops by 1965? And why do you do that? Because the author doesn't agree with you! That's cherry picking at it's finest...

You have the right to your opinion, and so does Saunders. But the policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

IF Kennedy's intentions were to escalate the war, WHY would he put himself in that position? ALL of the military brass and the CIA were dead set against Kennedy's policy.

 

[Oldstyle]

The 2 biggest decisions that entangled America in Vietnam were made by Eisenhower and Johnson.

US Involvement in Vietnam: the first turning point

At the international conference convened to discuss French Indochina at Geneva in May 1954, the French exit was formalised. Vietnam was temporarily divided, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the north and the Emperor Bao Dai in control of the south. The Geneva Accords declared that there were to be nationwide elections leading to reunification of Vietnam in 1956. However, US intervention ensured that this ‘temporary division’ was to last for more than 20 years.

The United States refused to sign the Geneva Accords and moved to defy them within weeks. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, organised allies such as Britain in the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The SEATO signatories agreed to protect South Vietnam, in defiance of the Geneva Accords, which had forbidden the Vietnamese from entering into foreign alliances or to allow foreign troops in Vietnam.

The Eisenhower administration encouraged Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister, and then proceeded to engage in ‘nation building’. Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid a wholly Communist Vietnam, the US had sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam.

Within weeks of Geneva, Eisenhower arranged to help Diem set up South Vietnam. He sent General ‘Lightning Joe’ Collins and created MAAG (the Military Assistance Advisory Group) to assist in the process. The US also helped and encouraged Diem to squeeze out Bao Dai.

The French exit meant that Eisenhower could have dropped Truman's commitment in Vietnam.

"Despite all the doubts, the Eisenhower administration stuck with Diem. By the end of Eisenhower's presidency, there were nearly 1,000 US advisers helping Diem and his armed forces. Under President Kennedy, the number of advisers rocketed to around 16,000, which renders suspect claims that, had he lived, Kennedy would have got out of Vietnam."

That's from YOUR cited source, Bfgrn! Viv Saunders is not only spot on about how the US got into Vietnam but she's spot on when she's skeptical about Kennedy getting us OUT!

Gee, you cite an article to deflect blame from Kennedy but purposely leave out the one paragraph that actually addresses your claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn all our troops by 1965? And why do you do that? Because the author doesn't agree with you! That's cherry picking at it's finest...

You have the right to your opinion, and so does Saunders. But the policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

IF Kennedy's intentions were to escalate the war, WHY would he put himself in that position? ALL of the military brass and the CIA were dead set against Kennedy's policy.

"Intentions"? Kennedy didn't "intend" to escalate the war...he'd ALREADY DONE SO!!! The reason that Saunders questions whether Kennedy would have withdrawn troops is because of what Kennedy had done up to that point. To use her term...Kennedy had "rocketed" the number of American troops being deployed in Vietnam.

Your problem is that both my opinion...and that of Saunders...is based on what Kennedy had actually DONE...whereas your opinion is based on what he MIGHT have done. You see him as a dove when in reality he was anything but...

 

[Bfgrn]

"Despite all the doubts, the Eisenhower administration stuck with Diem. By the end of Eisenhower's presidency, there were nearly 1,000 US advisers helping Diem and his armed forces. Under President Kennedy, the number of advisers rocketed to around 16,000, which renders suspect claims that, had he lived, Kennedy would have got out of Vietnam."

That's from YOUR cited source, Bfgrn! Viv Saunders is not only spot on about how the US got into Vietnam but she's spot on when she's skeptical about Kennedy getting us OUT!

Gee, you cite an article to deflect blame from Kennedy but purposely leave out the one paragraph that actually addresses your claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn all our troops by 1965? And why do you do that? Because the author doesn't agree with you! That's cherry picking at it's finest...

You have the right to your opinion, and so does Saunders. But the policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

IF Kennedy's intentions were to escalate the war, WHY would he put himself in that position? ALL of the military brass and the CIA were dead set against Kennedy's policy.

"Intentions"? Kennedy didn't "intend" to escalate the war...he'd ALREADY DONE SO!!! The reason that Saunders questions whether Kennedy would have withdrawn troops is because of what Kennedy had done up to that point. To use her term...Kennedy had "rocketed" the number of American troops being deployed in Vietnam.

Your problem is that both my opinion...and that of Saunders...is based on what Kennedy had actually DONE...whereas your opinion is based on what he MIGHT have done. You see him as a dove when in reality he was anything but...

Saunders article is not focusing on what Kennedy would have done. She has not spent years going through declassified documents or years listening to numerous hours of Presidential tape recordings. The article ends with these questions.

Issues to Debate

• Was Eisenhower or Johnson more responsible for producing the Vietnam War?

• What evidence is there that biased reporting hastened the US withdrawal from Vietnam?

• What was the significance of the Tet offensive?

 

[Oldstyle]

You have the right to your opinion, and so does Saunders. But the policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

IF Kennedy's intentions were to escalate the war, WHY would he put himself in that position? ALL of the military brass and the CIA were dead set against Kennedy's policy.

"Intentions"? Kennedy didn't "intend" to escalate the war...he'd ALREADY DONE SO!!! The reason that Saunders questions whether Kennedy would have withdrawn troops is because of what Kennedy had done up to that point. To use her term...Kennedy had "rocketed" the number of American troops being deployed in Vietnam.

Your problem is that both my opinion...and that of Saunders...is based on what Kennedy had actually DONE...whereas your opinion is based on what he MIGHT have done. You see him as a dove when in reality he was anything but...

Saunders article is not focusing on what Kennedy would have done. She has not spent years going through declassified documents or years listening to numerous hours of Presidential tape recordings. The article ends with these questions.

Issues to Debate

• Was Eisenhower or Johnson more responsible for producing the Vietnam War?

• What evidence is there that biased reporting hastened the US withdrawal from Vietnam?

• What was the significance of the Tet offensive?

This is like a criminal defense lawyer having an expert witness testify...only to turn around and have to impeach that witness because they mention during questioning that they think the defendant appears to be guilty.

You provide Saunders as a "witness" for your contention...only to turn around and say her opinion is of little value because she hasn't researched the subject as well as she should. You've in essence done so because you asked her what she thought Kennedy would have done and she in essence replied that she could only base her opinion on what he HAD done and based on that she found it to be unlikely that he would have withdrawn troops.

If you WERE an attorney I'd caution you to be more careful about who you "call to the stand" because THIS witness has made you look foolish.

 

[Oldstyle]

Then you try to convince the "jury" to disregard THAT part of Saunder's testimony and focus on three other things she talked about. It's amusing. If you WERE a trial lawyer your client would probably have a good case for a new trial because of improper representation.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Intentions"? Kennedy didn't "intend" to escalate the war...he'd ALREADY DONE SO!!! The reason that Saunders questions whether Kennedy would have withdrawn troops is because of what Kennedy had done up to that point. To use her term...Kennedy had "rocketed" the number of American troops being deployed in Vietnam.

Your problem is that both my opinion...and that of Saunders...is based on what Kennedy had actually DONE...whereas your opinion is based on what he MIGHT have done. You see him as a dove when in reality he was anything but...

Saunders article is not focusing on what Kennedy would have done. She has not spent years going through declassified documents or years listening to numerous hours of Presidential tape recordings. The article ends with these questions.

Issues to Debate

• Was Eisenhower or Johnson more responsible for producing the Vietnam War?

• What evidence is there that biased reporting hastened the US withdrawal from Vietnam?

• What was the significance of the Tet offensive?

This is like a criminal defense lawyer having an expert witness testify...only to turn around and have to impeach that witness because they mention during questioning that they think the defendant appears to be guilty.

You provide Saunders as a "witness" for your contention...only to turn around and say her opinion is of little value because she hasn't researched the subject as well as she should. You've in essence done so because you asked her what she thought Kennedy would have done and she in essence replied that she could only base her opinion on what he HAD done and based on that she found it to be unlikely that he would have withdrawn troops.

If you WERE an attorney I'd caution you to be more careful about who you "call to the stand" because THIS witness has made you look foolish.

Saunder's article was on Eisenhower and Johnson. THAT was the focus of her research. She is welcome to an opinion of Kennedy, as are you. But people who have spent years researching SPECIFICALLY what Kennedy would have done disagree.

Let me ask you some specific questions...

When did Vietnam become Lyndon Johnson's policy?

How long after Kennedy died is he still responsible?

 

[Oldstyle]

Saunders article is not focusing on what Kennedy would have done. She has not spent years going through declassified documents or years listening to numerous hours of Presidential tape recordings. The article ends with these questions.

Issues to Debate

• Was Eisenhower or Johnson more responsible for producing the Vietnam War?

• What evidence is there that biased reporting hastened the US withdrawal from Vietnam?

• What was the significance of the Tet offensive?

This is like a criminal defense lawyer having an expert witness testify...only to turn around and have to impeach that witness because they mention during questioning that they think the defendant appears to be guilty.

You provide Saunders as a "witness" for your contention...only to turn around and say her opinion is of little value because she hasn't researched the subject as well as she should. You've in essence done so because you asked her what she thought Kennedy would have done and she in essence replied that she could only base her opinion on what he HAD done and based on that she found it to be unlikely that he would have withdrawn troops.

If you WERE an attorney I'd caution you to be more careful about who you "call to the stand" because THIS witness has made you look foolish.

Saunder's article was on Eisenhower and Johnson. THAT was the focus of her research. She is welcome to an opinion of Kennedy, as are you. But people who have spent years researching SPECIFICALLY what Kennedy would have done disagree.

Let me ask you some specific questions...

When did Vietnam become Lyndon Johnson's policy?

How long after Kennedy died is he still responsible?

So you think Saunders researched the Vietnam policies of Eisenhower and Johnson...but somehow ignored Kennedy? That's ridiculous. Her opinion of Kennedy is based on what she knows of his policies in Vietnam.

The early part of Lyndon Johnson's Presidency was deliberately a continuation of the policies that JFK had advocated. Johnson went out of his way to give the appearance of a US government who's policies were going ahead seamlessly uninterrupted by the assassination of the former President.

As for who is responsible for what? Johnson is responsible for the dramatic increase of US troops under his administration just as Kennedy is responsible for the dramatic increase under HIS administration. You give Kennedy credit for troop withdrawals that he never made and may never HAVE made. It's the same type of ideological "blinders wearing" that led the Nobel Committee to award Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing...on the assumption that he would somehow bring peace to the world. Saunders bases her skepticism about Kennedy's withdrawal "plan" on his track record. What do you base YOURS on?

 

[Bfgrn]

This is like a criminal defense lawyer having an expert witness testify...only to turn around and have to impeach that witness because they mention during questioning that they think the defendant appears to be guilty.

You provide Saunders as a "witness" for your contention...only to turn around and say her opinion is of little value because she hasn't researched the subject as well as she should. You've in essence done so because you asked her what she thought Kennedy would have done and she in essence replied that she could only base her opinion on what he HAD done and based on that she found it to be unlikely that he would have withdrawn troops.

If you WERE an attorney I'd caution you to be more careful about who you "call to the stand" because THIS witness has made you look foolish.

Saunder's article was on Eisenhower and Johnson. THAT was the focus of her research. She is welcome to an opinion of Kennedy, as are you. But people who have spent years researching SPECIFICALLY what Kennedy would have done disagree.

Let me ask you some specific questions...

When did Vietnam become Lyndon Johnson's policy?

How long after Kennedy died is he still responsible?

So you think Saunders researched the Vietnam policies of Eisenhower and Johnson...but somehow ignored Kennedy? That's ridiculous. Her opinion of Kennedy is based on what she knows of his policies in Vietnam.

The early part of Lyndon Johnson's Presidency was deliberately a continuation of the policies that JFK had advocated. Johnson went out of his way to give the appearance of a US government who's policies were going ahead seamlessly uninterrupted by the assassination of the former President.

As for who is responsible for what? Johnson is responsible for the dramatic increase of US troops under his administration just as Kennedy is responsible for the dramatic increase under HIS administration. You give Kennedy credit for troop withdrawals that he never made and may never HAVE made. It's the same type of ideological "blinders wearing" that led the Nobel Committee to award Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing...on the assumption that he would somehow bring peace to the world. Saunders bases her skepticism about Kennedy's withdrawal "plan" on his track record. What do you base YOURS on?

I base mine on FACTS. The policy on the day Kennedy died will never be changed by John F. Kennedy...FACT. It could ONLY be changed by Johnson...FACT. Troops WERE withdrawn, even your own source article confirms that about half the 1,000 troops WERE withdrawn by the end of 1963...FACT.

I have already agreed that Kennedy increased our troop level in Vietnam...FACT. But for argument sake, let's completely eliminate the Kennedy US policy to withdraw that was in place on November 22nd, 1963.

Kennedy decides to cancel the trip to Texas...Kennedy lived...

SO, we are at 16,000 troops in Vietnam for another 5 years. The average casualty level during the Kennedy years was 62 American soldiers per year.

Vietnam is a small footnote in American history.

 

[Oldstyle]

Fine, for arguments sake let's assume that since Kennedy increased the number of US troops in Vietnam from less than a thousand to sixteen thousand in two and a half years it's also possible that if he'd had another five years in office he may very well have CONTINUED to increase the number of troops at the same pace...which means doubling their number approximately every six months. In that case we would have had over two hundred and fifty thousand troops in Vietnam by the end of two years. The truth is...you have absolutely no idea WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels because as Saunders pointed out...his past record indicated that he would be more apt to increase them than decrease them.

 

[Bfgrn]

Fine, for arguments sake let's assume that since Kennedy increased the number of US troops in Vietnam from less than a thousand to sixteen thousand in two and a half years it's also possible that if he'd had another five years in office he may very well have CONTINUED to increase the number of troops at the same pace...which means doubling their number approximately every six months. In that case we would have had over two hundred and fifty thousand troops in Vietnam by the end of two years. The truth is...you have absolutely no idea WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels because as Saunders pointed out...his past record indicated that he would be more apt to increase them than decrease them.

You just lost pal.

You said you are basing your opinion on what Kennedy DID. You LIED. You just admitted you are trying to blame Kennedy for what Johnson DID.

NOW, we have to include the official policy Kennedy put in place. That policy was to withdraw. So if you want to speculate, the logical assumption of WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels is to DEcrease, not increase.