JFK - Vietnam War (WWII, bomb, generals, raids)

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by texdav

That is much like saying that south korea must be fine since their is no revolutionary moverment there.They certainly have ruled much longer than the present vietnamese governamnt;but it hardly a system to be admired.Strong supression works wanders as many governments have realised for centurnies.

I didn't write that Vietnam was "fine." I wrote that there is no indictation of their communist government failing on its own.

[Nighteyes]

Originally Posted by totsuka

... JFK made a huge error in not leaving and letting South Vietnam fall to the Communists.

Once again, history disagrees with you. Recall that Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. The United States build-up in Vietnam began under Lyndon Johnson nearly two years later, in 1965.

Revisonist history is alive and well, and thriving in both of our major political parties...

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Nighteyes

Once again, history disagrees with you. Recall that Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. The United States build-up in Vietnam began under Lyndon Johnson nearly two years later, in 1965.

Revisonist history is alive and well, and thriving in both of our major political parties...

I beieve that you have misunderstood. totsuka wrote:

JFK made a huge error in not leaving and letting South Vietnam fall to the Communists

It was under President Eisenhower that the US made its commitment to try and replace France as the colonial policeman of Vietnam, sending "advisers" who were in theory not engaging in combat, but in reality, were. Under President Kennedy the number of adviser troops doubled in 1961 and tripled in 1962. This was being done to prevent the collapse of the government of Ngo Dinh Diem..."our boy" as LBJ dubbed him in '61. At the time of the JFK assassination, the US had 16,000 "adviser" troops in Vietnam.

Had JFK decided to let Diem fend for himself and he had pulled the US advisers from Vietnam in 1963, there is little doubt that the Viet Cong insurgency would have prevailed in short order. Diem was Catholic and hated by the Buddhist majority.

That is what totsuka was referencing, President Kennedy ending US involvement before the 1965 escalation under President Johnson.

[Nighteyes]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I beieve that you have misunderstood (totsuka).

With respect, Grandstander, I don't believe I did. I think totsuka has the timeline sorta mixed-up.

To be perfectly clear, I give credence to the voices of the "boots-on-the-ground" in RSVN circa 1961 through early 1965, because I think that they had a much better grasp of how things were actually going than anyone else at the time. Once Johnson's massive build-up began in the spring of 1965, the waters became terribly muddied and "group-think" emerged as the modus operandi. If there is any difficulty with this, review the notes and writings of General Westmoreland's staff.

Regards to an admirable opponent (so to speak),

-- Nighteyes

PS: My contention is that the "Kennedy Plan" of teaching the locals how to fight their own battles was working, more-or-less. It wasn't until Johnson began his major build-up that the feces REALLY struck the rotating ventilation equipment, IMO. That's my two-hundredths of a dollar, of course. As always, YMMV.

- N.E.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Nighteyes

With respect, Grandstander, I don't believe I did. I think totsuka has the timeline sorta mixed-up.

To be perfectly clear, I give credence to the voices of the "boots-on-the-ground" in RSVN circa 1961 through early 1965, because I think that they had a much better grasp of how things were actually going than anyone else at the time. Once Johnson's massive build-up began in the spring of 1965, the waters became terribly muddied and "group-think" emerged as the modus operandi. If there is any difficulty with this, review the notes and writings of General Westmoreland's staff.

]

You had written that history didn't agree with totsuka. I took that to mean that you thought that totsuka had the facts wrong. If I am understanding you now, your complaint is that the US was doing okay in Vietnam under JFK.

In that someone calling for the US to leave Vietnam before we got mired in the big troop buildup under LBJ stikes me as a perfectly sensible thing to advocate, I am at a loss to grasp what point you are trying to make here or why you think that totsuka had any timeline wrong.

[Boompa]

JFK gave us the Bay of Pigs, The Cuban Missle Crises, and Vietnam. We had a 3 million man Army and the Reserves were called up almost the entire time he was President. Rewriting him is ridiculous

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by Nighteyes

Recall that Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

Not entirely by coincidence, Kennedy was assassinated at that time because he had undergone a change of mind regarding the situation in Vietnam. In fact, his Presidency can be divided into two separate sections; early on, as a neophyte to the system, he took a lot of advice from people simply because they were senior to him as a government official. But towards the end of 1962, as he got more comfortable in office, he began to assert his own opinions more and more. And at the same time, take an increasingly dim view of the "advice" he had previously been receiving.

By late summer 1963, Kennedy had pretty much stopped believing what was constantly being poured into his ears concerning Vietnam. He started looking at it as a mess--and not a mess that was going to get cleaned up any time soon. That turned out to be a minority opinion within the government.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

Not entirely by coincidence, Kennedy was assassinated at that time because he had undergone a change of mind regarding the situation in Vietnam. .

Huh? Do you have any evidence for this? The above implies that the assassain was some sort of pro Vietnam war advocate and that certainly does not describe Oswald the Fidel Castro sympathizer.

So....you know that it wasn't Oswald, and you know the motivationsof the true assassains. You will certainly be required to present whatever information you have which supports such a notion.

And as a time saver..."It makes political sense to me" isn't evidence.

[Nighteyes]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I am at a loss to grasp what point you are trying to make here or why you think that totsuka had any timeline wrong.

My friend and honorable opponent (),

I believe totsuka was saying that Kennedy should have decided to pull out of Vietnam, some two to three years after his death. If my belief is incorrect, totsuka should step in and correct my understanding.

I do not wish to debate or argue with you (or anyone else) about what a third party believed or meant. There is no way for either party to win such an argument.

Regards,

-- Nighteyes

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Nighteyes

My friend and honorable opponent (),

I believe totsuka was saying that Kennedy should have decided to pull out of Vietnam, some two to three years after his death. If my belief is incorrect, totsuka should step in and correct my understanding.

I do not wish to debate or argue with you (or anyone else) about what a third party believed or meant. There is no way for either party to win such an argument.

Regards,

-- Nighteyes

I see no need for any sort of debate because this is one of those win/win situations for me. Either totsuku never materializes and explains the intent, or totsuka returns and explains that of course the reference was to Kennedy withdrawing the 16,000 adviser troops. See, I figure that there is no chance at all of totsuku showing up and posting "Yes, I meant that President Kennedy should have withdrawn the troops three years after his death."