Warfare

Discussion in 'History' started by Athena, May 28, 2005.

  1. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, you can go back much further than President Kennedy to see how the Vietnam War actually started ....like our foreign policies of the 40's, for god's sake. I think you're seeking the "smoking gun" and in history, you're not likely to find one in any war or conflict or conquest. It takes years and years for things, simple things like disagreements, to build up to war.

    However, around this forum, if you want any kind of agreement on anything bad in the world, just blame it on the USA and most people here will heartily agree with you.

    Baron Max
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I was only addressing his post, he made a comment that was a total lie and I wanted him to either show his proof or back down on his claims. I realize there were others before him that sent "advisors" into Vietnam but JFK INCREASED the troops levels and actually started the WAR. If you look back at the WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam they were all started by DEMOCRATS. Nobody ever brings this fact out but critizes Bush for going into Iraq. What a bunch of hippocrits people are by doing so.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Vietnam was never a dominoe threat , it was a lucrative proving ground for surplus production from the US military industrial complex .

    Vietnam did indeed prove to be the 'domino threat'. While all of SE Asia didn't fall to communism when South Vietnam fell, Cambodia and Laos both did, as Eisenhower had originally predicted.

    Vietnam was a manufactured war , the reason was to subsidize the military industrial complex to the tune of billions .

    Vietnam happened because it was during the height of the Cold War, anti-communism was rampant in the US, and no US president, be he Democrat or Republican, could afford to ignore Vietnam. The presidency rode on how a president would deal with communism. Johnson was well aware of the intense criticism that Truman and the Democrats had taken for supposedly 'giving China away' to Mao and the communists in 1949, especially after FDR had been blamed for 'giving Eastern Europe away' to Stalin at Yalta. And competent State Department people in Asia had been weakened during the McCarthy era. Further, 1964 was an election year and the Republicans, led by Barry Goldwater, the hard-line anti-communist Republican candidate had been very vocal against first Kennedy, and then Johnson, for not doing enough to help SV (he would suddenly become very moderate after the Gulf of Tonkin incident). In essence, in the intense politics of the Cold War, with the fear of countries falling like dominos to communism, the presidency was always considered to be the last domino that would fall if a president allowed those nations to fall.

    Johnson, like JFK, got handed a really shitty deal with Vietnam. Eisenhower had set the stage for eventual US involvement in Vietnam by supporting Diem's decision not to agree to the '56 Geneva-mandated election for reunification, and declaring the 'domino theory in regards to SE Asia. Lose Vietnam and lose the next election.

    JFK was murdered in 1963 because he was pulling troops from Vietnam .

    It's more than likely that JFK was assassinated by someone in the Mafia since the Kennedy's had made a lot of promises to get the Teamster's support and then Bobby, the Attorney General, turned on them after his brother was elected. Besides, at the time of his death, JFK had as yet made no decision to pull the advisors (there were no US combat troops in Vietnam yet), he had merely broached the idea.

    Lyndon Johnson his successor executed the war by the now proven hoax of the The Gulf of Tonkin Incident .

    The site you linked is extremely misleading. It only suggests that the incident on the first day (August 2) may or may not have actually happened, when in fact, it did happen. That fact is not even in dispute. Former NVA officers have admitted as such. They only deny the second incident (August 4) happened. Whether it was fabricated or not is open for debate, but some crew members (non-officers) of the C. Turner Joy said later they believed they were under attack, so it is very likely that 19-year olds, in the dark and jittery from the attack 2 nights before, may have mistakenly thought they were under attack and opened fire on phantom gunboats.

    Either way, as CinC, Johnson had a choice to either wait and see what an investigation showed, or strike back. The first incident, NV gunboats firing on the C. Turner Joy, had already taken place. While it's true the ship was within the 12 mile international line, the US only recognized a 3 mile zone and had made that clear. And despite what the article claimed, although the US knew of the SV commando raids taking place that night (8/2), there is no evidence the ship was assisting them, but rather was simply monitoring the events.

    And there is nothing to indicate Johnson was already planning for war by the time of the Gulf of Tonkin. Although he ordered the air strike immediately in retalitation to the alleged second incident, he showed surprising restraint in ordering further strikes even though the resolution gave him carte blanche with US force. He refused the adivce of his advisors to retaliate against a NV strike on the US airbase outside of Saigon on the eve of the presidential election in November, and again refused to order a retaliatory strike, despite pressure from McNamara and Maxwell Taylor, when the Brinks Hotel (where American government and military officials were housed) was bombed on Christmas Eve. It was until February 1965, when the airbase at Pleiku was attacked with losses in American lives, that Johnson finally ordered retaliatory strikes. While it's true that before Christmas he had ordered some 3500 Marines in to protect the airbase around Saigon, and had secretly ordered in 2 more battalions of Marines, at the time they were operating in a 50-mile radius around the bases. While I'm not forgiving Johnson, nevertheless, it's ridiculous to claim that he had been secretly planning a war and had fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incidents to get Congress to give him that war.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    The Mafia woould never be so brazen as to assassinate a president. Never has the Mafia been powerful enough to do such a thing. The amount of intel that goes into investigating a presidential assassination is mindboggling; if a criminal organization such as the Mafia was behind it, people would find out. And once the Feds found out, the backlash against the Mafia would be devestating.

    Before President McKinley decided to engage in the Phillipine war, he prayed hard to see what God would tell him. McKinley believed that it was his duty to go and spread God to the heathens. It was Manifest Destiny.
     
  8. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    The Mafia woould never be so brazen as to assassinate a president. Never has the Mafia been powerful enough to do such a thing. The amount of intel that goes into investigating a presidential assassination is mindboggling; if a criminal organization such as the Mafia was behind it, people would find out. And once the Feds found out, the backlash against the Mafia would be devestating.

    The mafia of today couldn't pull an assassination off, but the mafia of 1963 had the capabilities, as well as the connections. And it makes more sense than Johnson wanting JFK assassinated because the latter wanted to pull the military advisors out of Vietnam.

    Before President McKinley decided to engage in the Phillipine war, he prayed hard to see what God would tell him. McKinley believed that it was his duty to go and spread God to the heathens. It was Manifest Destiny.

    McKinley told a group of Methodist ministers visiting the White House that he had gotten down on his knees the night before and prayed to God for directions on what to do with the Philippines. What you tell a group of ministers in an attempt to win support of their constituencies, and what your actual reasons are, are two different things. A lot of the clergy believed in the idea of Mission, or Manifest Destiny. McKinley on the other hand was more pragmatic. He knew that the US was late in getting one of the 'spheres of influence' in China. Being on the doorstep in the Philippines was the next best thing. He also feared that giving the Filipinos their independence meant the possibility of another power, particularly Germany or Japan, seizing the archipelago.
     
  9. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Spyke-
    I still disagree on the Mafia's power, even in 1963, to get away with an assissantion of that magnitude.

    I think McKinley and Bush are similar. Both are pragmatic in the sense that their wars will bring greater economic and military might to the US (I hope), but there is a strong religious component of that as well.
    Disregarding McKinley's and Bush's faith would be like disregarding the role Christianity played in the Crusades. There was heaps of economic incentive for the Man to go to war, but he needed something to tell the people.
     
  10. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    A number of reasons come to mind. Weapons development needs; maintence of a war mentality in the public; justification for maintenace of police state, both national and international; war is good for business, as alluded to war dulls the senses, action against war puts one defending "nonloyalty".; so much can be done to tighten the screws on th epublic during war.
    For instance , for those that remember, when the War on Terror Was unequivically decided, the War becam indefininite" untril the terrorism is effectively controlled, it never will be., hence the war is indenfinte, 2 years, 3 10 20?

    geistkiesel
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Lets remember that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Russia for 6 years before returning to America. He was shot by Jack Ruby so that he wouldn't tell who gave him orders to kill JFK.
     
  12. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    I still disagree on the Mafia's power, even in 1963, to get away with an assissantion of that magnitude.

    Perhaps, but if the head of the FBI is not eager to pursue it, anything is possible.

    Lets remember that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Russia for 6 years before returning to America. He was shot by Jack Ruby so that he wouldn't tell who gave him orders to kill JFK.

    Let's also remember that both Oswald and Ruby made trips to New Orleans the summer of '63. Crime boss Carlos Marcello, who once had ties to Meyer lansky, controlled New Orleans, the same Marcello who had been forced to plead the 5th before a Senate hearing under questioning by Senator JFK, and who was later deported to Guatemala by Bobby Kennedy, and who had returned to the US and had, according to a witness, said he would see the Kennedys killed.

    Disregarding McKinley's and Bush's faith would be like disregarding the role Christianity played in the Crusades. There was heaps of economic incentive for the Man to go to war, but he needed something to tell the people.

    I agree he needed something to tell the people. I also agree that McKinley believed that Mission had its place, and was a duty. But if you read McKinley's thoughts on the Philippines you find that he struggled with the idea of annexation. He considered giving the archipelago back to Spain in the peace treaty, then considered only holding the island of Luzon, but finally the fear of a rival seizing them ultimately drove him to support full annexation. If you read the arguments of all of those who supported annexation, whether congressmen in the debates in Congress, businessmen, newspapermen, clergy, etc., they all made their various arguments about business opportunities in Asia, national security, 'carrying the flag' with the Constitution, etc, but somewhere in almost every argument the individual doing the arguing always managed to get in the notion of Mission, of America's Christian duty, because the idea could be sold to Americans, who still for the most part clung to the principal of isolationism, much more than the other ideas.
     
  13. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    Sure here is the official goverment order of withdrawl from JFK on October 5, 1963 .
    What dont speak dont lie , read the entire memorandum within it is the entire end to the Vietnam question .
     
  14. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    From your source:

    " The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. "
     
  15. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    And..................Is there something I am missing ? Ill make it clearer this is the follow up memorandum to the previous one .

    Please read the rest for herein this document is the ending of US military build up in Vietnam . The future policy of JFK was to support Vietnam with military advisors and equipment .
     
  16. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    And not withdraw troops there already.
     
  17. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    The figure of 1,000 American troops mentioned within the memorandum for withdrawl pertains to those in Vietnam as stated within that document . Again I ask you to read the entire memorandum , as it clearly and unequivocable demonstrates without a shred of doubt that JFK was going to end any build up of US military involvement .
     
  18. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Please read the rest for herein this document is the ending of US military build up in Vietnam . The future policy of JFK was to support Vietnam with military advisors and equipment .

    A policy of supporting South Vietnam with military advisors and equipment was not a decision JKF suddenly decided on right before he was assassinated. At the time he took office in '61 there were roughly 700 Air Force support and security personnel in theater, originally sent in under Ike. JFK sent in around 16,000-17,000 military advisors (to train the ARVN) over the next 2 1/2 years. The 1,000 military personnel he had decided to withdraw, which had been McNamara's proposal, were advisors, not combat personnel. There had been no military build-up in Vietnam under JFK to begin with, just an increase in advisors and funding, so it can't be said he was suddenly scaling back a military buildup.
     
  19. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    Military advisers or Combat personnel doesnt matter it is picking gnat shit out of pepper . The fact was that JFK was scaling down from what was a build up . And as I said read the memorandum in full and you will see that JFK was going to end US involvement in Vietnam . That was the question put forward to me to answer with proof to which I did .
     
  20. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Military advisers or Combat personnel doesnt matter it is picking gnat shit out of pepper . The fact was that JFK was scaling down from what was a build up .

    It matters a whole hell of a lot whether they were military advisors or combat personnel. One represents a commitment to train SV forces to fight their own war, the other represents a commitment to go to war alongside those forces. As of October '63 there had been no build up of combat troops, which would have represented a US commitment to war. A decision to pull out 1000 advisors may or may not have been an indication of a commitment by JFK to alter what had previously been a serious commitment to SV.

    And as I said read the memorandum in full and you will see that JFK was going to end US involvement in Vietnam .

    I read those memorandums long before you linked them here. I've also read the various arguments from each side, from Arthur Schlesinger, Noam Chomskey, Tom Wicker, and Stanley Karnow, who all disagree that JFK was going to withdraw from SV, to James Galbreath, John Newman and Peter Dale Scott, each of whom believe that JFK would have withdrawn. McNamara also states as much in his 1995 In Retrospect, much of which has to be taken with a grain of salt.

    The argument is whether or not JFK had made the decision to completely withdraw all of the advisors by December '65, which can't be ascertained from an October '63 decision to pull 1000 of the 16,000-17,000 in SV at the time. Considering that he had sent in a few thousand of those advisors earlier in '63, and had given final approval for the removal of Diem after the decision to remove the 1000 advisors (and supposedly had made the decison for complete withdrawal, it seems a remarkably sudden reversal of his commitment to SV. It is also questionable that JFK would make the decision to de-commit considering that only 2 weeks before in September he had said there could be no withdrawal of US advisors without victory for SV.

    That was the question put forward to me to answer with proof to which I did .

    Well, you linked a memorandum that showed that JFK was going to remove a small percentage of advisors. It doesn't prove a complete withdrawal. However, in your first post you stated...

    JFK was murdered in 1963 because he was pulling troops from Vietnam .

    ...but that link proves nothing of the kind. Even if you're correct and JFK had committed himself to removing all of the advisors by Dec. '65, you haven't shown any proof that he was assassinated for that reason, nor have you offered up who might have wanted him dead for that decision. You did say that after JFK was assassinated, LBJ committed the US to war following the Gulf of Tonkin 'hoax'. Are you asserting that LBJ had JFK assassinated for wanting to de-commit?
     
  21. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    I see you have high regards for American servicepeople. With your attitude towards the truth I doubt anyone could convince you that JFK did not pull troops out and was going to increase their streagnth from all indications that he wanted to support South Vietnam not let it be taken over.

    "Nov. 1963: South Vietnamese generals kill President Ngo Dinh Diem in a plot condoned by key American officials who felt Saigon could not win under his leadership. Three weeks later, Kennedy is assassinated. He is succeeded by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson"
     
  22. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    I have shown you , as requseted by you , 2 official goverment memoradums from the JFK administration outlining the withdrawl of 1,000 US military personell .
    These 1,000 U.S. military personnel were withdrawn in Dec 1963 before LBJ rescinded the order .
     
  23. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    Noam Chomsky's "Rethinking Camelot" where he could not arrive at a firm conclusion other than second hand accounts . Here read C H A P T E R T W O see how that intellectual fraud offers nothing but interpretations and offers the standard "whether or not JFK was going to withdraw" conclusion .
    I say now based on what I have read about the Eisenhower years and the Kennedy administration both men wanted to pull the plug on the Cold War in full . Both men eventually saw through the charade for Eisenhower it came to late . JFK was going to act and he was assasinated thats my conclusion.
     

Share This Page