Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Baloney, we were intentionally and knowingly provoking both Germany and Japan. FDR desperately wanted war; this is well documented. We got what he wanted.
That should ne easy for you to prove, seeing it is so well documented.
I think both parties support imperialism, which is still unpopular to the majority of Americans. In the interest of making it appear like Americans have a choice as to whether or not the empire should be built and expanded, the Democrats act like they don't support imperial wars -- which any idiot can see is clearly not the case.
without imperilism of some kind , americans ( and europeans ) would be paying twice as much for gas as they are now , the oil producing regimes of the mid east maintain order in thier own countries by way of american millitary funding , if the OBL,s of this world had gotten thier way , the fuel line would be cut pretty quick and american oil companies would be sent packing
btw , i dont want to sound like im preaching from a high horse against the usa , the british used its muscle to ensure energy and material supply back in the day aswell
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
From what I understand Kennedy was a believer in the domino theory, but believed in supporting South Vietnam through military expertise, weapons, funding.etc, not actually sending Americans to fight their war. As he said, it wsa their war to fight. The Gulf of Tonkin incident happened in 1964, after his death.
Or, much more likely, the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened in 1964 or any other year.
From what I understand Kennedy was a believer in the domino theory, but believed in supporting South Vietnam through military expertise, weapons, funding.etc, not actually sending Americans to fight their war. As he said, it wsa their war to fight. The Gulf of Tonkin incident happened in 1964, after his death.
A different perspective:
"I recall the Kennedy had Diem murdered. Diem was our puppet governor - president in S. Vietnam. But he wouldn't always do what we told him, and I imagine he was stealing too much of our aid given to his country.
So the CIA shot him in the head - and we got a new puppet. And that point, Kennedy gave even more aid to the S. Vietnamese government.
Between Truman and Ike there were less than five hundred US troops in Vietnam to act as military advisors. When Kennedy entered office that number was around 475 to 495. Kennedy upped the number to over 3000 in just a few months. By '63 there were close to 5,000 troops acting as "military advisors and Kennedy vowed to pull out of Vietnam by the end of '65, vowing to bring the first 1,000 troops home by Christmas of '63. BUT, despite what he told the American public Kennedy proceeded to sign orders just days before his assassination that would send an additional 16,000 troops into Vietnam. LBJ's escalation started with JFK."
Really??? Is that it? A memo from a low level intell officer.... A close reading shows that its recommendations were supposed to deter and contain Japan (to help insure England at least stalemated with Japan), while better preparing the United States for a future conflict in the Pacific. There is an offhand remark that an overt Japanese act of war would make it easier to garner public support for actions against Japan, but the document's intent was not to ensure that event happened.
"I recall the Kennedy had Diem murdered. Diem was our puppet governor - president in S. Vietnam. But he wouldn't always do what we told him, and I imagine he was stealing too much of our aid given to his country.
So the CIA shot him in the head - and we got a new puppet. And that point, Kennedy gave even more aid to the S. Vietnamese government.
Between Truman and Ike there were less than five hundred US troops in Vietnam to act as military advisors. When Kennedy entered office that number was around 475 to 495.
I see at least 800 advisors just before JFK, and that is only the OFFICIAL total those they acknowledge. I suspect it was double that easy.
Quote:
Kennedy upped the number to over 3000 in just a few months. By '63 there were close to 5,000 troops acting as "military advisors and Kennedy vowed to pull out of Vietnam by the end of '65, vowing to bring the first 1,000 troops home by Christmas of '63. BUT, despite what he told the American public Kennedy proceeded to sign orders just days before his assassination that would send an additional 16,000 troops into Vietnam. LBJ's escalation started with JFK."
I didn't check you YAHOO ANSWERS cite, but the documents I have read from that period had JFK planning a phased withdrawl a month or so before he was killed.
Historically, most recent wars were initiated by Democratic governments.
You could say in a way the Civil War was, since the Democrats were largely associated with the South.
World War I - Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
World War II - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman
Korean War - Probably the exception
Vietnam War - LBJ
The wars in the Middle East, yes were started by Republicans. But Obama isn't really any less of a warmonger than the Republicans, but why are conservatives/Republicans seen as being more pro-war?
Well, you're ignoring the HUGE political shift that occured in the 1960's. Republicans and Democrats today bear little resemblance to their pre-1960's versions. When people paint Republicans as war hawks, it is in the context of post-vietnam era.
How many Republicans want to cut our bloated military budget? Very few, the vast majority the GOP defends us speding billions picking the tab for other countries defense. If and when Dems suggest spending less they're attacked for being "weak" and not wanting to keep the country safe.
Really??? Is that it? A memo from a low level intell officer.... A close reading shows that its recommendations were supposed to deter and contain Japan (to help insure England at least stalemated with Japan), while better preparing the United States for a future conflict in the Pacific. There is an offhand remark that an overt Japanese act of war would make it easier to garner public support for actions against Japan, but the document's intent was not to ensure that event happened.
The document's intent may not have been, but of the eight points recommended, seven were followed by the authorities who read the document. FDR wanted war, this was well-known even at the time (although before Watergate, nobody publicly accused Presidents of having sinister agendas.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
