JFK - Vietnam
YoHarvey
to prevent him from turning into George McGovern is absurd. So
pathetically ignorant of modern American history are true believers
that they really can't distinguish the politics of John (who was,
among other things, a life member of the National Rifle Association)
from the politics his brother Teddy began espousing a decade after
John's death.
JFK latest biographer's summary is "Ideologically, Kennedy was at best
a sort of centrist Democrat.... He was militantly anti-Communist and
committed to an aggressive foreign policy. An earlier biographer
compares JFK to Nelson Rockefeller: by accident of birth Rockefeller
was a Republican and JFK a Democrat -- yet, by inclination, each
belonged in the other's party.
Ike's speech against the military-industrial complex was actually a
warning against JFK, it's patron. It was JFK who resumed nuclear
testing which Eisenhower had stopped. It was JFK who called on every
American family to build a fall-out shelter. He campaigned for
President on the phony "missile gap," charging Eisenhower with
inadequate military spending that had allowed the Russians to leap
ahead. As president he vastly increased spending on missiles and every
sort of high-tech weaponry along with the greatest expansion of
conventional military forces and weapons systems since the end of
WWII.
As to Cuba, what the CIA stonewalled about for years after JFK's death
was the campaign of military sabotage and assassination he personally
ordered when the Bay of Pigs showed the futility of overt invasion.
His latest biographer says: JFK "approved Operation Mongoose, the
clandestine exercise in terrorism and murder. Determined to win in
Cuba at any cost, Jack had secret dealings w/ one of the top mobsters
involved in the assassination attempts."
After World War II JFK had been one of those who pilloried Truman for
having "lost China to the Communists." So he was deeply concerned not
to provoke a similar campaign of vilification against himself by
losing in Vietnam. From the 1950s he had been espousing the domino
theory, saying "that a Communist takeover in Indo-China would imperil
Burma, Thailand and other independent states." Privately he told Dean
Rusk, "'If we have to fight in SEAsia, lets fight in Vietnam. The
Vietnamese, at least, are committed and will fight. There are a
million refugees from Communism in S. Vietnam. Vietnam is the place.'"
On many occasions JFK publicly rejected withdrawal, announcing his
determination to stay in South Vietnam to defeat the "Communist
aggression" against it because "For us to withdraw from this effort
would begin a collapse not only of South Vietnam but of Southeast
Asia. So we are going to stay there." This theme was emphatically
reiterated in the speech he was going to give in Dallas the day he was
killed
YoHarvey
Kennedy and the Cold War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout his pre-presidential career, JFK was an active Cold
Warrior. As noted, his first Congressional campaign boasted of taking
on the anti-Cold War faction of the Democratic party led by Henry
Wallace, and as a congressman he aligned himself with those who said
the Truman Administration wasn't being tough enough, when he willingly
attached his name to the chorus demanding "Who Lost China?"
One does not even have to rehash his relationship with Joseph McCarthy
to show how JFK willingly played the "tough on communism" issue in all
his campaigns. In 1952, while running for the Senate, he proudly
trumpeted the fact that during his first term in the House, even
before Nixon had won fame for the exposure of Alger Hiss, JFK's work
on a labor committee led to the conviction of a communist union
official. While in Congress, he supported all of America's overseas
activities in waging the Cold War.
Even while running for President in 1960, JFK appealed to the "tough
on the Soviets" issue by consistently hammering at Eisenhower for
America's supposed lack of leadership, and America "falling behind the
Soviets." It was JFK, promising more money for defense spending and
American readiness when he charged Eisenhower for allowing a non-
existent "missile gap" to develop between the U.S. and Soviet nuclear
arsenals. And it was JFK, who during the debates with Nixon, charged
that Eisenhower policy had resulted in the loss of Cuba.
Upon assuming the Presidency, JFK's Inaugural Address was as hawkish
as one could ever get. "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us
well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival
and the success of liberty."
As President, JFK, in order to credibly claim he had taken action
against the "missile gap," ordered an increase in spending on nuclear
missiles that set off an arms race that resulted in America losing its
nuclear superiority by the end of the decade. Those who point to the
Limited Test Ban Treaty as proof of JFK wanting to begin the first
step toward disarmament, should remember that JFK wanted a ban chiefly
for environmental reasons, and not because he envisioned the long-term
elimination of nuclear weapons. Indeed, it was JFK's own Defense
Secretary, Robert McNamara who came up with the Mutual Assured
Destruction (MAD) principle that was dependent entirely on the
maintenance of a sizable nuclear arsenal.
JFK, to be sure, did make efforts to reduce direct tensions with the
USSR following the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the installation of a
teletype Hot Line was seen as essential to preventing the slowness of
communication that had hampered talks during the crisis from happening
again. But merely because JFK wanted to reduce direct tensions with
the USSR in no way meant backing away from the basic principle of
containment first enunciated in the Truman Doctrine. Khrushchev had
still publically declared that the Soviets would support "wars of
national liberation" wherever they occurred in the world, and since
JFK firmly believed in the "Domino Theory" (as he told David Brinkley
in the fall of 1963), then the idea of backing away from containment
was impractical from a national security stanpoint, let alone a
political one.
It was for these reasons alone, that holding the line in Vietnam was
essential. It was JFK who increased America's troop number from 500 to
16,000 and he repeatedly insisted that while Vietnam might have been
"in the final analysis, their war," American troops were nontheless
not there "to see a war lost" and that he totally disagreed with those
who were suggesting the idea of a pullout. "I think that would be a
mistake," he said to Walter Cronkite in 1963.
That JFK was determined not to see Vietnam lost was borne out by his
actions all throughout 1963. It was JFK who decided that South
Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem needed to be removed from office
not because Diem was engaging in repression against Buddhists, but
because Kennedy had become convinced that Diem was an impediment to
winning the war. As a result, when prodding from Washington failed to
work, it was JFK who authorized the coup that resulted in Diem's
overthrow and assassination on November 1, 1963 (the latter was not
desired by JFK, but it was extremely naïve for him to not foresee such
a result). Those who insist that JFK was ready to wash his hands of
Vietnam and abandon the South never seem to realize that if that were
the case, then why did JFK meddle so much in South Vietnamese politics
right up to the eve of his death? Since the South was not in any
immediate danger of collapse, it would have been far simpler for JFK
to disengage than by engineering a coup against Diem.
Revisionists who claim otherwise about JFK and Vietnam hinge their
assertions on two points. One, are the stories told by JFK aides Dave
Powers and Ken O'Donnell that JFK had privately revealed his intention
to withdraw, but only after the 1964 elections, when it would be
politically far more feasible to do so. This assertion has to be taken
with a grain of salt. The O'Donnell/Powers story, appeared in 1971 at
a time when America was still deeply embroiled in Vietnam, and when
all the Democrats who had originally supported the committment were
now against the war, especially since it was now Republican Richard
Nixon's war.
But five years earlier, when Vietnam had not yet torn the nation apart
as deeply as it would by 1967 and 1968, the attitude of the JFK
faction was entirely different. All of them, from Arthur Schlesinger
to Pierre Salinger, and most importantly Teddy and Robert Kennedy, put
aside their distaste for Lyndon Johnson to support the initial
committment because, in their minds, Vietnam was perceived as having
been a Kennedy operation. Not until late 1966 and 1967, when Vietnam
was now seen in the public perception as having been entirely started
by LBJ, was it safe for the Kennedy faction to be anti-war without
being anti-JFK. And by 1971, there was hardly anyone in America who
still remembered Vietnam as having been at one time a Kennedy
operation. Therefore, when this context of when O'Donnell and Powers
wrote their memoir is taken into account, one cannot call this
confirmation of JFK's real intentions.
More importantly, the active policymakers, including Secretary of
State Dean Rusk, insisted that JFK never discussed pulling out at any
time. Even more telling is the fact that when Lyndon Johnson did make
the decision to go to war one year later, the advice he took came
entirely from Kennedy holdovers, including Rusk, Robert McNamara, and
national security advisor McGeorge Bundy. The only voice raised in
opposition to a committment was undersecretary of State George Ball,
but he had never held more influence over JFK than the others.
In point of fact, the one person who knew JFK better than anyone else,
Robert Kennedy, was willing to let history know exactly what his
brother's intentions in Vietnam had been as early as 1964 and 1965,
the critical period before it had truly become "Johnson's War." In a
series of oral history interviews for the JFK Library, RFK said that
"it was worthwhile for psychological, political reasons" to stay in
Vietnam.
"The President felt that he had a strong, overwhelming reason for
being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam....If you
lost Vietnam, I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of
Southeast Asia would fall." (32)
John Bartlow Martin point-blank asked RFK "if the President was
convinced that the United States had to stay in Vietnam." The one-word
response was "Yes." (33)
None of this means we can tell for certain what JFK would have done
had he been forced to make the tough decisions of 1964 and 1965 that
LBJ made. In the same interview, Martin asked RFK whether JFK had been
prepared to make a full-scale land committment, and RFK responded,
"We'd face that when we came to it." Not proof that JFK would have
acted the same way, but definite proof that he had made no decision to
act in the manner described by Oliver Stone. (34)
At any rate, it seems incredulous to think that the argument of
Kennedy partisans that JFK was planning a pullout only when the
election was over, should somehow make JFK seem heroic. If that were
in fact true, then what the JFK partisans are saying is that JFK was
prepared to lie to the American public, and to the South Vietnamese
people and government about his committment to South Vietnam for the
sake of pure politics. At the same time, JFK would have been willing
to make all of America's allies wonder if America was serious about
keeping its word in honoring its committments, if he in fact went
through with such a cynical betrayal of the South. It stretches the
imagination to think that a man of JFK's political savvy would have
been willing to sacrifice American credibility in such a cynical
fashion by promising to defend the South in 1964, and then throwing
them to the wolves in 1965.
The other cornerstone of the pullout thesis is the fact that at one
point in the Fall of 1963, JFK had made tentative steps toward having
1000 of the 16000 advisors withdrawn by years end, as emboided in an
on-site evaluation by Maxwell Taylor and Robert McNamara. This is
frequently cited as having been the first phase of a planned pullout,
but this is not the case. Not only do all the above advisors (RFK and
Rusk) confirm that their was no overall pullout planned, but JFK had
already announced at his October 31, 1963 press conference that of the
1000, the first 250 would come from the ranks of those "who are not
involved in what might be called front-line operations." JFK was also
careful to stress in the press conference that the proposed 1000 troop
reduction was not a done deal, since it was dependent on the increased
efficiency of the South Vietnamese performance. (35)
With JFK ambivalent about what he'd do in the future, but still
determined to hold the line and not see the war lost if he could help
it, the motive behind the "fascist coup'd'etat" goes completely out
the window. As noted, it is dependant on the idea that JFK was naive
enough to think he could get away with seeing Vietnam fall without
being subjected to the same kind of backlash that he himself had taken
part in as a Congressman against the Truman Admininstration over "who
lost China." Had he taken that risk, then he would also have lost all
his credibility in being able to get domestic legislation through the
Congress as well. (Not that he had much at that point anyway.) One
only has to reread Theodore White's The Making of a President to see
that JFK was certainly not that stupid when it came to politics.
The real JFK is to be found not in the fantasies of Oliver Stone, but
in the summation by biographer Thomas Reeves.
Given his belief in the global struggle between east and west, his
acceptance of the domino theory, his conviction that Vietnam was the
testing ground for combatting 'wars of national liberation,' his often
zealous committment to counterinsurgency, and his determination to
never appear soft on communism, Jack might well have been compelled,
as conditions worsened, to commit more American troops to Vietnam. It
is clear that his harsh public rhetoric made disengagement more
difficult. And his clumsy and unprincipled acquiescence in the coup
tied the United States closely to the eight military governments that
briefly succeeded Diem. (A Question of Character, p. 411)
Indeed, by overthrowing Diem, and ushering in a period of instability
that lasted until the accession of Nquyen Van Theiu in 1967, JFK left
Lyndon Johnson with the unpleasant dichotomy of either go-in full-
scale or pull-out completely in 1964, when the decision had to be
made. By removing Diem, there could be no "Vietnamzation" option for
LBJ because the conditions made it impossible. Facing the detrimental
political risks that had plagued JFK, LBJ virtually had no choice but
to increase the American role. The decision was ultimately made for
LBJ not by the "military-industrial complex" but by the legacy of John
F. Kennedy's actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(32) Reeves, 410-411; Robert Kennedy: In His Own Words, 394-395.
(33) Ibid.
(34) Ibid.
(35) Ibid.; Reeves, 643 from transcript of JFK press conference,
10/31/63.
Gil Jesus
troll...........
....or you can see and hear from the people who were THERE in their
OWN words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhLlOiWvvXo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN6r7MTTf9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Icbzk8mg8
MORE
YoHarvey
> You can waste your time reading the cut-and-paste opinions copied by a
> troll...........
>
> ....or you can see and hear from the people who were THERE in their
> OWN words.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Icbzk8mg8
>
> MORE
>
> www.youtube.com/GJJdude
roflmao, roflmao....he is soooooooooooooooo easy to rattle roflmao,
roflmao. The ignorant usually are.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2b1cdac-8ede-4a6a...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
SEE Proof of this CUNT's Lies >>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fac97c74-6da9-4e8b...@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
desired by JFK, but it was extremely naďve for him to not foresee such
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01fc7840-7ea7-489f...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
billc...@live.com
> You can waste your time reading the cut-and-paste opinions copied by a
> troll...........
>
> ....or you can see and hear from the people who were THERE in their
> OWN words.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Icbzk8mg8
>
> MORE
>
> www.youtube.com/GJJdude
You should read the man’s message and learn some history. You also
should read the links below and learn some more history.
So instead of wasting time with your rinky-dink U-Tube why not read
and hear the Bulls discussing the draft of NSAM 263. Not only are
they THERE but they are the principal players that made the
discussions.
I recommended these links to your buddy robcap and he mumbled
something about “doctored tapes” and fled the battlefield. Obviously
he didn’t like what they had to say. Are you made of sterner stuff?
It is clear that the group was unanimous in believing the war would be
won by 1965. So please explain to me why JFK would run away when he
was winning (or at least thought he was winning)? Can you explain
such foolishness?
Bill Clarke
1. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
2. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/ind...
3. http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm
This is from # 1.
JFK: Do you think this thousand reduction can really….
McNamara: Yes, sir. We ….
McNamara: Well, not really, because what- the thousand people are
just not needed out there.
JFK: Is that going to be an assumption that it’s going well, but if it
doesn’t go well [unclear]
McNamara: No, no, sir. One of the major premises- two [unclear] we
have. First, we believe we can complete the military campaign in the
first three corps in 64 and the fourth corps in 65. But secondly, if
it extends beyond that period we believe we can train the Vietnamese
to take over the essential functions and withdraw the bulk of our
forces.
Taylor: I will just say this, that we talked to 174 officers,
Vietnamese and U.S., and in the case of the U.S. (officers) I always
asked the question, “When can you finish this job in the sense that
you will reduce this insurgency to little more than sporadic
incidents.” Inevitably, except for the Delta, they would say
“64 would be ample time.” I realize that’s not necessarily…..I assume
there’s no major new factors entering [unclear], I realize that----
JFK: Well, let’s say it anyway. Then ’65 if it doesn’t work out
{unclear] we’ll get a new date.
Taylor: I would think if we take these dates, Mr. President, it ought
to be very clear what we mean by victory or success. That doesn’t
mean that every [unclear] comes [unclear] a white flag. But we do-
we’re crushing this insurgency to the point that the national security
forces of Vietnam can [unclear].
McGeorge Bundy: It doesn’t mean that every American Officer comes out
of there either.
Taylor: No.
McNamara: We have about 3,500 left at the end of the period.
___________________________________________________________________________________
McNamara: Very important, but this is at the battalion level. There
are 90 battalions and 3 men per battalion are the stiffeners. That’s
270 men out of 17,000. Now we might want to keep those for an
extended period.
JFK: Well, just say, “While there may continue to be a requirement for
special training forces, we believe that the major United States part
of the task will be completed by 1965”, or “advisory forces”.
McNamara: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
From #1 still. WIN the war.
McNamara: The only slightest difference between Max and me in this
entire report is this one estimate of whether or not we can WIN (CAPs
mine for your benefit) the war in ’64 in the upper [unclear: three]
territories and ’65 in the [unclear:forth].
This from number 3. The 1,000 men withdrawal.
McNamara: Or we can do it just through normal attrition…[unclear:
normal rotation]
JFK: Yeah.
McNamara: Normal rotation.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 24, 4:35 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You can waste your time reading the cut-and-paste opinions copied by a
> > troll...........
>
> > ....or you can see and hear from the people who were THERE in their
> > OWN words.
>
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Icbzk8mg8
>
> > MORE
>
> >www.youtube.com/GJJdude
>
> You should read the man’s message and learn some history. You also
> should read the links below and learn some more history.
>
> So instead of wasting time with your rinky-dink U-Tube why not read
> and hear the Bulls discussing the draft of NSAM 263. Not only are
> they THERE but they are the principal players that made the
> discussions.
>
"I recommended these links to your buddy robcap and he mumbled
something about “doctored tapes” and fled the battlefield. Obviously
he didn’t like what they had to say. Are you made of sterner stuff?"
Who fled the battlefield? I got tired of your lies with NO proof being
offered by you. These tapes were redone as this would make it look
like JFK was for a war in Vietnam and the real proof shows he was
not. It is NOT hard to doctor tapes, it is simply a matter of
splicing and taping things together. I learned how to do it in
college. Either put up your proof that JFK wanted a major land war in
Asia or shut up.
>
> It is clear that the group was unanimous in believing the war would be
> won by 1965. So please explain to me why JFK would run away when he
> was winning (or at least thought he was winning)? Can you explain
> such foolishness?
>
> Bill Clarke
>
> 1.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_am/
> 2.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1002_vietnam_pm/ind...
> 3.http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/clips/1963_1005_vietnam/index.htm
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 25, 1:04 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 4:35 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > You can waste your time reading the cut-and-paste opinions copied by a
> > > troll...........
>
> > > ....or you can see and hear from the people who were THERE in their
> > > OWN words.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhLlOiWvvXohttp://www.youtube.com/watc...
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Icbzk8mg8
>
> > > MORE
>
> > >www.youtube.com/GJJdude
>
> > You should read the man’s message and learn some history. You also
> > should read the links below and learn some more history.
>
> > So instead of wasting time with your rinky-dink U-Tube why not read
> > and hear the Bulls discussing the draft of NSAM 263. Not only are
> > they THERE but they are the principal players that made the
> > discussions.
>
> "I recommended these links to your buddy robcap and he mumbled
> something about “doctored tapes” and fled the battlefield. Obviously
> he didn’t like what they had to say. Are you made of sterner stuff?"
Gee, why didn’t you guys warn me about the old “doctored tape” escape
from the truth? I guess I should have been prepared but admit that I
wasn’t. I’m guessing that any evidence that LHO was the assassin is
also “doctored”.
> Who fled the battlefield? I got tired of your lies with NO proof being
> offered by you.
Please point out the lies. As for proof, NSAM263 works for me, it
being in black and white makes it a fact, not merely your opinion.
> These tapes were redone as this would make it look
> like JFK was for a war in Vietnam and the real proof shows he was
> not.
You have no evidence to indicate that these tapes are altered and no
reason to suspect that they were. Since NSAM 263 accurately reflects
the discussion and decisions stated in the tapes most normal folks
would consider the tapes as more evidence to the thoughts that went
into NSAM 263. Now I guess NSAM 263 is altered? I’m surprised you
missed this, what with a college degree and all.
> It is NOT hard to doctor tapes, it is simply a matter of
> splicing and taping things together. I learned how to do it in
> college.
I’m glad you learned something in college because you certainly didn’t
learn how to think, reason and use logic. Perhaps they will refund
your tuition.
> Either put up your proof that JFK wanted a major land war in Asia or shut up.
I never said JFK wanted a major land war in SEA. I don’t believe JFK
or LBJ wanted the war in Vietnam but even the President of the United
States doesn’t always get what he wants.
What I do say is that JFK was not in the process of abandoning SVN at
the time of his death. Call it “ALL the troops”, complete withdrawal
or whatever. The proof of that is in NSAM 263. You got something
else?
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
Your inability to see that the "evidence" against LHO is doctored says
it all. Show me evidence that JFK wanted a land war in SE Asia. I
want the proof to be dated prior to 11/22/63 as once JFK was killed
anything could be done to make it look like it was his idea.
> > Who fled the battlefield? I got tired of your lies with NO proof being
> > offered by you.
>
"Please point out the lies. As for proof, NSAM263 works for me, it
being in black and white makes it a fact, not merely your opinion."
The biggest is NSAM 273 being the same as NSAM 263. Where does NSAM
263 have the words "we will assist them in WINNING their contest?"
You keep saying they were the same, yet you can't provide a single
document showing JFK approved war in SE Asia.
> > These tapes were redone as this would make it look
> > like JFK was for a war in Vietnam and the real proof shows he was
> > not.
>
"You have no evidence to indicate that these tapes are altered and no
reason to suspect that they were. Since NSAM 263 accurately reflects
the discussion and decisions stated in the tapes most normal folks
would consider the tapes as more evidence to the thoughts that went
into NSAM 263. Now I guess NSAM 263 is altered? I’m surprised you
missed this, what with a college degree and all."
Of course I do. All you have to do is look at JFK's policy towards SE
Asia for his entire political career and then look at what was said he
was going to do once he was dead to know it was a bunch of bull. JFK
was NOT for a land war in SE Asia, you need to show things with his
signature that showed he was for your points to be honest. NSAM 263
does NOT contain the words "help them win their contest" and it's main
point is to get the SVA ready to fight on its own. Your LOW self-
esteem has nothing to do with this discussion.
>
> > It is NOT hard to doctor tapes, it is simply a matter of
> > splicing and taping things together. I learned how to do it in
> > college.
>
"I’m glad you learned something in college because you certainly
didn’t learn how to think, reason and use logic. Perhaps they will
refund your tuition."
Same tired old excuse used by all who think they know everythink. If
having logic and knowing how to "think and reason" means thinking like
you then I'd rather not. You are clueless about the whole JFK
political career, yet you pass judgement on him.
> > Either put up your proof that JFK wanted a major land war in Asia or shut up.
>
"I never said JFK wanted a major land war in SEA. I don’t believe JFK
or LBJ wanted the war in Vietnam but even the President of the United
States doesn’t always get what he wants."
Sure, and the reason we went to war was because of the "Gulf of
Tonkin" incident which was made up. IF LBJ didn't want war, why did he
make up a fictitious reason to start one?
"What I do say is that JFK was not in the process of abandoning SVN at
the time of his death. Call it “ALL the troops”, complete withdrawal
or whatever. The proof of that is in NSAM 263. You got something
else?"
I never said he was, you keep changing your story. I realize the date
for SVA to take over completely was the beginning of 1966, so yes, JFK
was not planning on leaving in 1964, but the point is, he was planning
on leaving. He would NOT have gone along with a Tonkin charade either.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 26, 5:03 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> "Gee, why didn’t you guys warn me about the old “doctored tape” escape
> from the truth? I guess I should have been prepared but admit that I
> wasn’t. I’m guessing that any evidence that LHO was the assassin is
> also “doctored”."
>
> Your inability to see that the "evidence" against LHO is doctored says
> it all. Show me evidence that JFK wanted a land war in SE Asia. I
> want the proof to be dated prior to 11/22/63 as once JFK was killed
> anything could be done to make it look like it was his idea.
Once again, I never said he wanted a land war in SEA. In fact, I
don’t think he wanted any war. However, he had a war going and it was
one he had seriously escalated during his term.
> > > Who fled the battlefield? I got tired of your lies with NO proof being
> > > offered by you.
>
> "Please point out the lies. As for proof, NSAM263 works for me, it
> being in black and white makes it a fact, not merely your opinion."
>
> The biggest is NSAM 273 being the same as NSAM 263.
I never said they were the same. I say that NSAM 273 does not
significantly deepen our involvement in Vietnam. This is in agreement
with some distinguished historians. It is disputed by Anthony Marsh
and some English majors. Join the crowd.
> Where does NSAM263 have the words "we will assist them in WINNING their contest?"
You got me there Hotshot. The fact is that WE, as in the U.S. were
going to win the war. “McNamara: The only slightest difference
between Max and me in this entire report is this one estimate of
whether or not we can WIN (CAPs mine for your benefit) the war in ’64
in the upper [unclear: three] territories and ’65 in the
[unclear:forth].”
> You keep saying they were the same, yet you can't provide a single
> document showing JFK approved war in SE Asia.
Once again Dumbo, JFK was at war in Vietnam. He escalated war in
Vietnam. The formation of the MACV command in 1962 is a good
example. Didn’t you say you were a history major?
> > > These tapes were redone as this would make it look
> > > like JFK was for a war in Vietnam and the real proof shows he was
> > > not.
>
> "You have no evidence to indicate that these tapes are altered and no
> reason to suspect that they were. Since NSAM 263 accurately reflects
> the discussion and decisions stated in the tapes most normal folks
> would consider the tapes as more evidence to the thoughts that went
> into NSAM 263. Now I guess NSAM 263 is altered? I’m surprised you
> missed this, what with a college degree and all."
>
> Of course I do. All you have to do is look at JFK's policy towards SE
> Asia for his entire political career and then look at what was said he
> was going to do once he was dead to know it was a bunch of bull. JFK
> was NOT for a land war in SE Asia, you need to show things with his
> signature that showed he was for your points to be honest. NSAM 263
> does NOT contain the words "help them win their contest" and it's main
> point is to get the SVA ready to fight on its own. Your LOW self-
> esteem has nothing to do with this discussion.
Now you have retreated to your opinion, not fact. Isn’t this what you
warned YoHarvey about?
> > > It is NOT hard to doctor tapes, it is simply a matter of
> > > splicing and taping things together. I learned how to do it in
> > > college.
>
> "I’m glad you learned something in college because you certainly
> didn’t learn how to think, reason and use logic. Perhaps they will
> refund your tuition."
>
> Same tired old excuse used by all who think they know everythink. If
> having logic and knowing how to "think and reason" means thinking like
> you then I'd rather not. You are clueless about the whole JFK
> political career, yet you pass judgement on him.
I pass judgment on your ignorance.
> > > Either put up your proof that JFK wanted a major land war in Asia or shut up.
>
> "I never said JFK wanted a major land war in SEA. I don’t believe JFK
> or LBJ wanted the war in Vietnam but even the President of the United
> States doesn’t always get what he wants."
>
> Sure, and the reason we went to war was because of the "Gulf of
> Tonkin" incident which was made up. IF LBJ didn't want war, why did he
> make up a fictitious reason to start one?
AGAIN, the first incident was not “made up”. Read Moise’s book on the
incident, it is considered the most authoritive.
LBJ was trying to handle the war he had inherited from JFK. He really
didn’t need to make up an excuse.
> "What I do say is that JFK was not in the process of abandoning SVN at
> the time of his death. Call it “ALL the troops”, complete withdrawal
> or whatever. The proof of that is in NSAM 263. You got something
> else?"
>
> I never said he was, you keep changing your story. I realize the date
> for SVA to take over completely was the beginning of 1966, so yes, JFK
> was not planning on leaving in 1964, but the point is, he was planning
> on leaving.
And where does NSAM 263 say that JFK was leaving in 1965 come hellfire
or high water? It doesn’t.
> He would NOT have gone along with a Tonkin charade either.- Hide quoted text -
Again, we are down to your opinion.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 26, 2:21 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 5:03 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "Gee, why didn’t you guys warn me about the old “doctored tape” escape
> > from the truth? I guess I should have been prepared but admit that I
> > wasn’t. I’m guessing that any evidence that LHO was the assassin is
> > also “doctored”."
>
> > Your inability to see that the "evidence" against LHO is doctored says
> > it all. Show me evidence that JFK wanted a land war in SE Asia. I
> > want the proof to be dated prior to 11/22/63 as once JFK was killed
> > anything could be done to make it look like it was his idea.
>
"Once again, I never said he wanted a land war in SEA. In fact, I
don’t think he wanted any war. However, he had a war going and it was
one he had seriously escalated during his term."
I guess you either think I don't know, or you don't, that the CIA and
U.S. based entities had been in the SE Asia region (Cambodia, Loas and
Vietnam) since 1954. Once again JFK INHERITED the situation in that
region, just like the one in Cuba. We had a war happy group assisted
by Nixon who were trying to start many things to provide funding for
their goals. It is true that JFK sent in a lot of troops, but their
role was one of "advisor" so they could train the SVA as fast as
possible. JFK never intended to use this larger force (16,000) for
offensive efforts against the NVA. We willingly inherited the mess
left by the French, and JFK was keenly aware of the failure of a
modern army (French) to successfully fight a guerilla war, therefore,
this reinforced his already held belief that he would never condone a
land war in that region.
> > > > Who fled the battlefield? I got tired of your lies with NO proof being
> > > > offered by you.
>
> > "Please point out the lies. As for proof, NSAM263 works for me, it
> > being in black and white makes it a fact, not merely your opinion."
>
> > The biggest is NSAM 273 being the same as NSAM 263.
>
"I never said they were the same. I say that NSAM 273 does not
significantly deepen our involvement in Vietnam. This is in agreement
with some distinguished historians. It is disputed by Anthony Marsh
and some English majors. Join the crowd."
Bill, in all honesty, you have. ALL people who argue for a lone-
assassin theory in the JFK assassination always say NSAMs 263 & 273
were the same, as to admit otherwise means there was a legitimate
reason for JFK's death beyond a silly one that a lone nut shot him. It
was the first step in a process.
The next step was superceeding NSAM 217 with NSAM 284 which replaced
visit approval to high ranking military personnel and civilians to
South Vietnam from Gov. Harriman (JFK) to the Dept. of State through
"The Chairman of the Committee on Policy and Operations in Vietnam."
This group alone says we were going to be there for a long time. The
next step was NSAM 288 in March 1964 in which it refers to McNamara's
report which is approved. Of course this report was for our increased
participation in this region and included this:
"We seek an independent non-Communist South Vietnam . . . Unless we
can achieve this objective . . . almost all of Southeast Asia will
probably fall under Communist dominance (all of Vietnam, Laos, and
Cambodia), accommodate to Communism so as to remove effective U.S. and
anti-Communist influence (Burma), or fall under the domination of
forces not now explicitly Communist but likely then to become so
(Indonesia taking over Malaysia). Thailand might hold for a period
with our help, but would be under grave pressure. Even the Philippines
would become shaky, and the threat to India to the west, Australia and
New Zealand to the south, and Taiwan, Korea, and Japan to the north
and east would be greatly increased." (National Security Action
Memorandum 288, of 17 March 1964, The Pentagon Papers (New York:
Bantam/New York Times, 1971), pp. 283-285; and McNamara, Memorandum to
the President, 16 March 1964. FRUS, 1964-68, Vol. I, Vietnam 1964, p.
154.)
The final step was the phony "Gulf of Tonkin" charade. No, NSAM is
not blatantly obvious, but it did change the whole policy as JFK NEVER
allowed the words "to assist them WIN their contest" in any memo he
ever signed. He did not feel it was our responsibility to win
anything, but rather prepare them to fight to win on their own.
> > Where does NSAM263 have the words "we will assist them in WINNING their contest?"
"You got me there Hotshot. The fact is that WE, as in the U.S. were
going to win the war. “McNamara: The only slightest difference
between Max and me in this entire report is this one estimate of
whether or not we can WIN (CAPs mine for your benefit) the war in ’64
in the upper [unclear: three] territories and ’65 in the
[unclear:forth]".”
Since you love McNamara so much here are some more quotes from him:
"To introduce white forces--U.S. forces--in large numbers there
[Vietnam] today, while it might have an initial favorable military
impact, it would almost certainly lead to adverse political and in the
long run adverse military consequences." -- Robert S. McNamara, 1962
(McNamara testimony to Congress, March 1962, as cited in U.S.
Department of Defense, United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967 (The
Pentagon Papers), Book 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces," p. 2.
(Hereafter cited as Pentagon Papers (Govt. ed.)).)
We were wrong, terribly wrong. -- Robert S. McNamara, 1995(In
Retrospect, p. xvi.)
> > You keep saying they were the same, yet you can't provide a single
> > document showing JFK approved war in SE Asia.
>
"Once again Dumbo, JFK was at war in Vietnam. He escalated war in
Vietnam.
The formation of the MACV command in 1962 is a good example. Didn’t
you say you were a history major?"
He did NOT escalate war in Vietnam, and this is what I keep asking you
to provide as proof. He increased the amount of advisors to speed up
the training of the SVA so we COULD LEAVE by the end of 1965. You are
the one who keeps saying this is war, not me. Show me one major
offensive against northern forces by US forces during JFK's
presidency. Come on. You are hilarious, a formation of a command is
what military forces do, it is NOT the same as launching offensive
attacks.
> > > > These tapes were redone as this would make it look
> > > > like JFK was for a war in Vietnam and the real proof shows he was
> > > > not.
>
> > "You have no evidence to indicate that these tapes are altered and no
> > reason to suspect that they were. Since NSAM 263 accurately reflects
> > the discussion and decisions stated in the tapes most normal folks
> > would consider the tapes as more evidence to the thoughts that went
> > into NSAM 263. Now I guess NSAM 263 is altered? I’m surprised you
> > missed this, what with a college degree and all."
>
> > Of course I do. All you have to do is look at JFK's policy towards SE
> > Asia for his entire political career and then look at what was said he
> > was going to do once he was dead to know it was a bunch of bull. JFK
> > was NOT for a land war in SE Asia, you need to show things with his
> > signature that showed he was for your points to be honest. NSAM 263
> > does NOT contain the words "help them win their contest" and it's main
> > point is to get the SVA ready to fight on its own. Your LOW self-
> > esteem has nothing to do with this discussion.
>
"Now you have retreated to your opinion, not fact. Isn’t this what
you warned YoHarvey about?"
I haven't retreated at all, you are the one who CAN'T prove JFK wanted
war or started war in SE Asia. How come?
> > > > It is NOT hard to doctor tapes, it is simply a matter of
> > > > splicing and taping things together. I learned how to do it in
> > > > college.
>
> > "I’m glad you learned something in college because you certainly
> > didn’t learn how to think, reason and use logic. Perhaps they will
> > refund your tuition."
>
> > Same tired old excuse used by all who think they know everythink. If
> > having logic and knowing how to "think and reason" means thinking like
> > you then I'd rather not. You are clueless about the whole JFK
> > political career, yet you pass judgement on him.
>
"I pass judgment on your ignorance."
And you have shown all who stumble onto to this board how valuable
your judgement is. LOL!!! Not worth very much.
> > > > Either put up your proof that JFK wanted a major land war in Asia or shut up.
>
> > "I never said JFK wanted a major land war in SEA. I don’t believe JFK
> > or LBJ wanted the war in Vietnam but even the President of the United
> > States doesn’t always get what he wants."
>
> > Sure, and the reason we went to war was because of the "Gulf of
> > Tonkin" incident which was made up. IF LBJ didn't want war, why did he
> > make up a fictitious reason to start one?
>
"AGAIN, the first incident was not “made up”. Read Moise’s book on
the incident, it is considered the most authoritive. LBJ was trying to
handle the war he had inherited from JFK. He really didn’t need to
make up an excuse."
He inherited NO war from JFK as you can't show one offensive attack by
US forces in full before 1965, JFK was in a training mode and that is
all. He inherited the mess from Nixon and Eisenhower and was trying
to end it, unlike LBJ who was looking to expand it. You are wrong
again as there was NO hot war in Vietnam when JFK was killed. He
needed a reason to start a war.
> > "What I do say is that JFK was not in the process of abandoning SVN at
> > the time of his death. Call it “ALL the troops”, complete withdrawal
> > or whatever. The proof of that is in NSAM 263. You got something
> > else?"
>
> > I never said he was, you keep changing your story. I realize the date
> > for SVA to take over completely was the beginning of 1966, so yes, JFK
> > was not planning on leaving in 1964, but the point is, he was planning
> > on leaving.
>
"And where does NSAM 263 say that JFK was leaving in 1965 come
hellfire or high water? It doesn’t."
It stated the SVA should be fully trained by the end of 1965 and I'm
sure they would have been. The NVA never attacked the US first, it
was the US who made up a phony excuse and then started the war with an
attack. The NVA did not want war as they just finished with a long
war with the French. All the US wanted, under JFK, was the SVA to be
prepared to defend themselves from local infiltrations from the north,
not launch a war.
> > He would NOT have gone along with a Tonkin charade either.<<
"Again, we are down to your opinion."
Don't think so if one reads all of JFK's thoughts on the issue,
obviously you never have.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 26, 7:19 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
>
> I guess you either think I don't know, or you don't, that the CIA and
> U.S. based entities had been in the SE Asia region (Cambodia, Loas and
> Vietnam) since 1954.
Actually we had a presence in Vietnam since 1945.
> Once again JFK INHERITED the situation in that
> region, just like the one in Cuba.
True. It is common for presidents to inherit the mess of the
president before them.
> It is true that JFK sent in a lot of troops, but their
> role was one of "advisor" so they could train the SVA as fast as
> possible. JFK never intended to use this larger force (16,000) for
> offensive efforts against the NVA.
Dr. Moise states that the advisors had departed from their traditional
role and was involved in combat on the ground and in the air and sea.
About the only people that believe this, “they were only advisors”
crap are the JFK groupies that believe the man was a saint. He
wasn’t.
> We willingly inherited the mess
> left by the French, and JFK was keenly aware of the failure of a
> modern army (French) to successfully fight a guerilla war, therefore,
> this reinforced his already held belief that he would never condone a
> land war in that region.
Well, as you can imagine the French wasn’t really considered the A
team so with American arrogance their failure was dismissed as another
French loss. There was however men who advised JFK about a land war
in Asia, mostly the veterans of the Korean War. Macarthur, Taylor and
Ridgeway all belonged to the Never Again Club. Never again a land war
in Asia without the use of nuclear weapons.
> > > "Please point out the lies. As for proof, NSAM263 works for me, it
> > > being in black and white makes it a fact, not merely your opinion."
>
> > > The biggest is NSAM 273 being the same as NSAM 263.
>
> "I never said they were the same. I say that NSAM 273 does not
> significantly deepen our involvement in Vietnam. This is in agreement
> with some distinguished historians. It is disputed by Anthony Marsh
> and some English majors. Join the crowd."
>
> Bill, in all honesty, you have. ALL people who argue for a lone-
> assassin theory in the JFK assassination always say NSAMs 263 & 273
> were the same, as to admit otherwise means there was a legitimate
> reason for JFK's death beyond a silly one that a lone nut shot him. It
> was the first step in a process.
And the only ones that cry out how LBJ changed Jack’s “order” before
he was cold are the nuts pushing the, “they killed Jack because he was
withdrawing from Vietnam”. This group is usually made up of English
professors and other far left wing nuts. What a crock.
> > > Where does NSAM263 have the words "we will assist them in WINNING their contest?"
>
> "You got me there Hotshot. The fact is that WE, as in the U.S. were
> going to win the war. “McNamara: The only slightest difference
> between Max and me in this entire report is this one estimate of
> whether or not we can WIN (CAPs mine for your benefit) the war in ’64
> in the upper [unclear: three] territories and ’65 in the
> [unclear:forth]".”
>
> Since you love McNamara so much here are some more quotes from him:
I detest the man.
> He did NOT escalate war in Vietnam, and this is what I keep asking you
> to provide as proof. He increased the amount of advisors to speed up
> the training of the SVA so we COULD LEAVE by the end of 1965.
Again, see Dr. Moise's comments on "advisors".
You are
> the one who keeps saying this is war, not me. Show me one major
> offensive against northern forces by US forces during JFK's
> presidency. Come on. You are hilarious, a formation of a command is
> what military forces do, it is NOT the same as launching offensive
> attacks.
You're rather funny yourself, General. Most know that during
1961-1963 was not a time of "major offensive" by either side. It was
a small firefight war. Do you know about Ap Bac. Three dead
Americans and eight wounded, bringing the American death toll in
combat to thirty.. How about Plie Mrong? Four American Special Force
men wounded. Now General, this is by anyone's definition combat and
if combat isn't war I don't know what is.
>
> > > > > Either put up your proof that JFK wanted a major land war in Asia or shut up.
>
> > > "I never said JFK wanted a major land war in SEA. I don’t believe JFK
> > > or LBJ wanted the war in Vietnam but even the President of the United
> > > States doesn’t always get what he wants."
>
> > > Sure, and the reason we went to war was because of the "Gulf of
> > > Tonkin" incident which was made up. IF LBJ didn't want war, why did he
> > > make up a fictitious reason to start one?
>
> "AGAIN, the first incident was not “made up”. Read Moise’s book on
> the incident, it is considered the most authoritive. LBJ was trying to
> handle the war he had inherited from JFK. He really didn’t need to
> make up an excuse."
>
> He inherited NO war from JFK as you can't show one offensive attack by
> US forces in full before 1965, JFK was in a training mode and that is
> all. He inherited the mess from Nixon and Eisenhower and was trying
> to end it, unlike LBJ who was looking to expand it. You are wrong
> again as there was NO hot war in Vietnam when JFK was killed. He
> needed a reason to start a war.
LBJ inherited the war from JFK just as JFK did from Ike. Only it was
a much bigger inheritance for LBJ.
I'm sure the Americans at Ap Bac would disagree with your stupid
statement that it wasn't HOT at Ap Bac.
>
> "And where does NSAM 263 say that JFK was leaving in 1965 come
> hellfire or high water? It doesn’t."
>
> It stated the SVA should be fully trained by the end of 1965 and I'm
> sure they would have been.
Ah, your opinion again. Keep in mind, General, that NASM 263 was
built on false reports. It didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of
coming true. Had anyone got off their ass and moved out into the
field to talk with John Paul Vann and some others they would have know
this.
NSAM 263 makes no plan B, what to do if the plan fails. It doesn’t
deal with the instability in the SVG after Diem’s death and it doesn’t
deal with intact NVA regiments moving into SV in 1964. What would JFK
done about this? We don’t know, despite your crystal ball.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 27, 10:31 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 7:19 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > I guess you either think I don't know, or you don't, that the CIA and
> > U.S. based entities had been in the SE Asia region (Cambodia, Loas and
> > Vietnam) since 1954.
>
"Actually we had a presence in Vietnam since 1945."
Yes, but it was a very small scale as the French would not allow
anything else.
> > Once again JFK INHERITED the situation in that
> > region, just like the one in Cuba.
>
> True. It is common for presidents to inherit the mess of the
> president before them.
>
> > It is true that JFK sent in a lot of troops, but their
> > role was one of "advisor" so they could train the SVA as fast as
> > possible. JFK never intended to use this larger force (16,000) for
> > offensive efforts against the NVA.
>
"Dr. Moise states that the advisors had departed from their
traditional role and was involved in combat on the ground and in the
air and sea. About the only people that believe this, “they were only
advisors” crap are the JFK groupies that believe the man was a saint.
He wasn’t."
Good, then it should be easy for you to cite conflicts. Show me where
US forces attacked the NVA in force prior to 1965. I want dates,
forces involved, and locations.
> > We willingly inherited the mess
> > left by the French, and JFK was keenly aware of the failure of a
> > modern army (French) to successfully fight a guerilla war, therefore,
> > this reinforced his already held belief that he would never condone a
> > land war in that region.
>
"Well, as you can imagine the French wasn’t really considered the A
team so with American arrogance their failure was dismissed as another
French loss. There was however men who advised JFK about a land war
in Asia, mostly the veterans of the Korean War. Macarthur, Taylor and
Ridgeway all belonged to the Never Again Club. Never again a land war
in Asia without the use of nuclear weapons."
The French were a professional army, and they were well-equipped with
American made weapons. They did NOT learn the nature of guerilla
warfare, that is why they lost. It turns out they were right after
all as SV became communist anyway, and it cost 58,000 lives.
> > > > "Please point out the lies. As for proof, NSAM263 works for me, it
> > > > being in black and white makes it a fact, not merely your opinion."
>
> > > > The biggest is NSAM 273 being the same as NSAM 263.
>
> > "I never said they were the same. I say that NSAM 273 does not
> > significantly deepen our involvement in Vietnam. This is in agreement
> > with some distinguished historians. It is disputed by Anthony Marsh
> > and some English majors. Join the crowd."
>
> > Bill, in all honesty, you have. ALL people who argue for a lone-
> > assassin theory in the JFK assassination always say NSAMs 263 & 273
> > were the same, as to admit otherwise means there was a legitimate
> > reason for JFK's death beyond a silly one that a lone nut shot him. It
> > was the first step in a process.
>
"And the only ones that cry out how LBJ changed Jack’s “order” before
he was cold are the nuts pushing the, “they killed Jack because he was
withdrawing from Vietnam”. This group is usually made up of English
professors and other far left wing nuts. What a crock."
I never said this was the only reason, but rather the last straw that
broke the proverbial camel's back. They saw JFK would not start wars
for the heck of it and they saw him winning re-election in 1964. Add
in the very real concern (for those who hated them) that Bobby would
be next and then maybe Ted. None of those involved wanted another
possible 20 years of Kennedys in the White House. So you think we are
in Iraq because Bush really thinks this is best? He was told this
would happen and he is following orders.
> > > > Where does NSAM263 have the words "we will assist them in WINNING their contest?"
>
> > "You got me there Hotshot. The fact is that WE, as in the U.S. were
> > going to win the war. “McNamara: The only slightest difference
> > between Max and me in this entire report is this one estimate of
> > whether or not we can WIN (CAPs mine for your benefit) the war in ’64
> > in the upper [unclear: three] territories and ’65 in the
> > [unclear:forth]".”
>
> > Since you love McNamara so much here are some more quotes from him:
>
> I detest the man.
>
> > He did NOT escalate war in Vietnam, and this is what I keep asking you
> > to provide as proof. He increased the amount of advisors to speed up
> > the training of the SVA so we COULD LEAVE by the end of 1965.
>
"Again, see Dr. Moise's comments on "advisors"."
Again, show me the attackes we launched prior to JFK's death with the
advisors.
>
> You are
>
> > the one who keeps saying this is war, not me. Show me one major
> > offensive against northern forces by US forces during JFK's
> > presidency. Come on. You are hilarious, a formation of a command is
> > what military forces do, it is NOT the same as launching offensive
> > attacks.
>
"You're rather funny yourself, General. Most know that during
1961-1963 was not a time of "major offensive" by either side. It was
a small firefight war. Do you know about Ap Bac. Three dead
Americans and eight wounded, bringing the American death toll in
combat to thirty.. How about Plie Mrong? Four American Special Force
men wounded. Now General, this is by anyone's definition combat and
if combat isn't war I don't know what is."
Of course small clashes would occur, you can't put men with guns close
together and expect anything else, but wars are not made up of platoon
based skirmishes (although this is what actually happened) all by
themselves, but rather large forces invading space. Show me where our
advisors invaded their space prior to 11/22/63.
> > > > > > Either put up your proof that JFK wanted a major land war in Asia or shut up.
>
> > > > "I never said JFK wanted a major land war in SEA. I don’t believe JFK
> > > > or LBJ wanted the war in Vietnam but even the President of the United
> > > > States doesn’t always get what he wants."
>
> > > > Sure, and the reason we went to war was because of the "Gulf of
> > > > Tonkin" incident which was made up. IF LBJ didn't want war, why did he
> > > > make up a fictitious reason to start one?
>
> > "AGAIN, the first incident was not “made up”. Read Moise’s book on
> > the incident, it is considered the most authoritive. LBJ was trying to
> > handle the war he had inherited from JFK. He really didn’t need to
> > make up an excuse."
>
> > He inherited NO war from JFK as you can't show one offensive attack by
> > US forces in full before 1965, JFK was in a training mode and that is
> > all. He inherited the mess from Nixon and Eisenhower and was trying
> > to end it, unlike LBJ who was looking to expand it. You are wrong
> > again as there was NO hot war in Vietnam when JFK was killed. He
> > needed a reason to start a war.
>
"LBJ inherited the war from JFK just as JFK did from Ike. Only it was
a much bigger inheritance for LBJ. I'm sure the Americans at Ap Bac
would disagree with your stupid statement that it wasn't HOT at Ap
Bac."
Of course individual soldiers would disagree if they are shot, but
this doesn't alter the big picture which was there was NO war in
Vietnam while JFK was alive. There were no incursions into NV, there
were no major actions and there were no bombings. You can wiggle all
you want, but your point is full of crap. JFK was trying to end the
issue by speeding up training of the SVA to free us of our
committment, but LBJ was not looking for a way out at all.
> > "And where does NSAM 263 say that JFK was leaving in 1965 come
> > hellfire or high water? It doesn’t."
>
> > It stated the SVA should be fully trained by the end of 1965 and I'm
> > sure they would have been.
>
"Ah, your opinion again. Keep in mind, General, that NASM 263 was
built on false reports. It didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of
coming true. Had anyone got off their ass and moved out into the
field to talk with John Paul Vann and some others they would have know
this."
You are right, and my opinion is based on facts. JFK believed without
a firm deadline the SVA would have no incentive to take up the cause,
and this is being borne out in Iraq now. He may have extended the
training period by some months, but he would not have made the logical
leap to war like you keep saying.
"NSAM 263 makes no plan B, what to do if the plan fails. It doesn’t
deal with the instability in the SVG after Diem’s death and it doesn’t
deal with intact NVA regiments moving into SV in 1964. What would JFK
done about this? We don’t know, despite your crystal ball."
I think that is the whole point, JFK was going to make sure it did not
fail, even if they were not fully trained he would have left as it was
not our conflict. All that junk of becoming communist meant very
little to most Americans, and as it was said back then, why care about
a place so far away when we have a communist country just 90 miles off
our shore? Speaking of Diem, you act like tapes aren't doctored, how
about those ones Nixon had Hunt do to make it sound like JFK ordered
the assassination of Diem? Pure doctoring there. JFK would have
tried negotiating first to see why they were making local attacks. He
would also have had the SVA ready to defend their country rather than
making it an American problem.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You kidding me? This idiot states opinion and actually believes his
own BS!!!! Not one word of truth based on history. Amazing how
ignorant people are. One historian said it perfectly:
losing in Vietnam. From the 1950s he had been espoused the domino
theory, saying "that a Communist takeover in Indo-China would imperil
Burma, Thailand and other independent states." Privately he told Dean
Rusk, "'If we have to fight in SEAsia, lets fight in Vietnam. The
Vietnamese, at least, are committed and will fight. There are a
million refugees from Communism in S. Vietnam. Vietnam is the place.'"
On many occasions JFK publicly rejected withdrawal, announcing his
determination to stay in South Vietnam to defeat the "Communist
aggression" against it because "For us to withdraw from this effort
would begin a collapse not only of South Vietnam but of Southeast
Asia. So we are going to stay there." This theme was emphatically
reiterated in the speech he was going to give in Dallas the day he was
killed.
Many 18th century Americans actually thought witches had afflicted
Salem. Many 19th century Americans actually thought the Catholic
Church murdered Lincoln. Many 1930s Americans thought the munitions
makers had conspired to cause WWI. The idea that JFK was murdered by a
right-wing conspiracy to stop his supposed plans to disengage in
Vietnam or Cuba is modern America's contribution to this comic record
of unreason
robcap...@netscape.com
Yo's drivel is so senseless to read, but even more so when one has to
hit the "read more" link. This is just too much effort to read such
crap.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
YoHarvey
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jesussssssssss....you again are showing your stupidity and lack of
formal education one more time. Why do you enjoy this humiliation?
billc...@live.com
>>
> Jesussssssssss....you again are showing your stupidity and lack of
> formal education one more time. Why do you enjoy this humiliation?
I don’t know what he gets out of it but I’ve enjoyed kicking his ass.
But now I’m beginning to feel guilty about beating a dumb brute.
I
Is this fucker for real? He just told me we weren’t concerned with
communism! Obviously he wasn’t born in the 1940s!
Bill Clarke
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 27, 6:07 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> "Actually we had a presence in Vietnam since 1945."
>
> Yes, but it was a very small scale as the French would not allow
> anything else.
It remained small until JFK became CIC.
> Good, then it should be easy for you to cite conflicts. Show me where
> US forces attacked the NVA in force prior to 1965. I want dates,
> forces involved, and locations.
I assume you mean the VC since only two or three regiments of the NVA
came down in 1964 and they kept a rather low profile. 1965 is a
different story.
Did you not understand what I told you about it being a small
firefight war at the time?
If you wish to learn about Ap Bac, and you should, a good source is “A
Bright Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan beginning on page 206. You really
need to read the book to understand what was happening in Vietnam
during this time period.
> "Well, as you can imagine the French wasn’t really considered the A
> team so with American arrogance their failure was dismissed as another
> French loss. There was however men who advised JFK about a land war
> in Asia, mostly the veterans of the Korean War. Macarthur, Taylor and
> Ridgeway all belonged to the Never Again Club. Never again a land war
> in Asia without the use of nuclear weapons."
>
> The French were a professional army, and they were well-equipped with
> American made weapons. They did NOT learn the nature of guerilla
> warfare, that is why they lost. It turns out they were right after
> all as SV became communist anyway, and it cost 58,000 lives.
Oh hell fire son, the fucking French haven’t won one sine Napoleon.
After they got ran out of Vietnam they proceeded to get their ass ran
out of Algeria.
> "Again, see Dr. Moise's comments on "advisors"."
>
> Again, show me the attackes we launched prior to JFK's death with the
> advisors.
See above.
> Of course small clashes would occur, you can't put men with guns close
> together and expect anything else, but wars are not made up of platoon
> based skirmishes (although this is what actually happened)
Good one General, I chortle again. First you tell me you can’t have a
war with platoon actions and then you tell me that is what did in fact
happen! You want to think on that a bit?
> themselves, but rather large forces invading space. Show me where our
> advisors invaded their space prior to 11/22/63.
Ap Bac, January 2-3, 1963. I’ve already given you the American body
count on this one.
> Of course individual soldiers would disagree if they are shot, but
> this doesn't alter the big picture which was there was NO war in
> Vietnam while JFK was alive.
There was a war going on. Just because the U.S. was only playing a
small part at the time does not mean a war wasn’t going on. If there
was no war why didn’t we just leave????
> There were no incursions into NV, there
> were no major actions and there were no bombings.
Aw General, you’re just making yourself look like shit here. I’m
embarrassed. The embryonic stage of OPLAN 34A began under JFK. True,
Americans didn’t go north but the “Advisors” ran the show of sending
Vietnamese into North Vietnam. For major actions please see my “Small
firefight war”, as you admit it was a “platoon action”. As for “no
bombings” what the hell do you think Kennedy sent bombers to Vietnam
to do? Play pocket pool? They were bombing the hell out of South
Vietnam. Who do you think flew the bombers?
> You can wiggle all you want, but your point is full of crap.
I’m not the one wiggling here General and I haven’t yet decided if you
are full of shit or just ignorant. Or both.
> JFK was trying to end theissue by speeding up training of the SVA to free us of our
> committment, but LBJ was not looking for a way out at all.
The only ones that cry this crap are people like you and Marsh that
are pissed because LBJ replaced your Prince. You cannot quote me one
historian of note that claims LBJ wanted the Vietnam War. You should
read “Shadows of Vietnam, Frank Vandiver to learn a bit about LBJ’s
entry into the war. For god sake read something about Vietnam if you
are going to persist in discussing it.
> "Ah, your opinion again. Keep in mind, General, that NASM 263 was
> built on false reports. It didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of
> coming true. Had anyone got off their ass and moved out into the
> field to talk with John Paul Vann and some others they would have know
> this."
>
> You are right, and my opinion is based on facts. JFK believed without
> a firm deadline the SVA would have no incentive to take up the cause,
> and this is being borne out in Iraq now. He may have extended the
> training period by some months, but he would not have made the logical
> leap to war like you keep saying.
For the fifteenth time I didn’t say JFK would have leaped into a
bigger war. I say he wasn’t going to abandon SVN. We don’t know what
he would have done about the worsening conditions in VN.
The “logical leap to war”? Logical? You’re confused again aren’t
you.
> "NSAM 263 makes no plan B, what to do if the plan fails. It doesn’t
> deal with the instability in the SVG after Diem’s death and it doesn’t
> deal with intact NVA regiments moving into SV in 1964. What would JFK
> done about this? We don’t know, despite your crystal ball."
>
> I think that is the whole point, JFK was going to make sure it did not
> fail,
I realize you think the man walked on water but I can assure you JFK
didn’t have the power to make NSAM 263 com true.
> even if they were not fully trained he would have left as it was
> not our conflict.
your opinion again. It means little.
> All that junk of becoming communist meant very
> little to most Americans,
My god man, JFK had us building bomb shelters. Even in the early
1960s we all thought the communist were coming for us. Obvious you
weren’t there at the time.
> He would also have had the SVA ready to defend their country rather than
> making it an American problem.-
See “walked on water.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 28, 5:18 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 6:07 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "Actually we had a presence in Vietnam since 1945."
>
> > Yes, but it was a very small scale as the French would not allow
> > anything else.
>
"It remained small until JFK became CIC."
JFK inherited the "Nixon" plan just like the Bay of Pigs. Nixon, if
he won, of course wouldn't have kept them to the roles of "advisors"
though, he would have started the war much sooner.
>
> > Good, then it should be easy for you to cite conflicts. Show me where
> > US forces attacked the NVA in force prior to 1965. I want dates,
> > forces involved, and locations.
>
"I assume you mean the VC since only two or three regiments of the NVA
came down in 1964 and they kept a rather low profile. 1965 is a
different story."
Whoever, cite major battles prior to JFK's death.
"Did you not understand what I told you about it being a small
firefight war at the time?"
Small firefights are NOT a war, in fact, they called the Korean
conflict a "police action" and we know they had larger battles than
Vietnam under JFK. I guess you are full of crap as usual.
"If you wish to learn about Ap Bac, and you should, a good source is
“A Bright Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan beginning on page 206. You
really need to read the book to understand what was happening in
Vietnam during this time period."
You are skirting the issue Bill, you said we had A WAR going under
JFK, a war connotates major battles. I want cites of major battles
under JFK.
>
> > "Well, as you can imagine the French wasn’t really considered the A
> > team so with American arrogance their failure was dismissed as another
> > French loss. There was however men who advised JFK about a land war
> > in Asia, mostly the veterans of the Korean War. Macarthur, Taylor and
> > Ridgeway all belonged to the Never Again Club. Never again a land war
> > in Asia without the use of nuclear weapons."
>
> > The French were a professional army, and they were well-equipped with
> > American made weapons. They did NOT learn the nature of guerilla
> > warfare, that is why they lost. It turns out they were right after
> > all as SV became communist anyway, and it cost 58,000 lives.
>
"Oh hell fire son, the fucking French haven’t won one sine Napoleon.
After they got ran out of Vietnam they proceeded to get their ass ran
out of Algeria."
Ignorant of WWI history I see. The French were bled dry in that war
and lost their will to fight for sometime, but they did redeem
themselves in WWII after they joined the Allied forces in 1943.
> > "Again, see Dr. Moise's comments on "advisors"."
>
> > Again, show me the attackes we launched prior to JFK's death with the
> > advisors.
>
"See above."
This DOESN'T cut it!!! I want cites from you on MAJOR battles as you
said JFK had a war going on. I don't want local firefights as
proof.
> > Of course small clashes would occur, you can't put men with guns close
> > together and expect anything else, but wars are not made up of platoon
> > based skirmishes (although this is what actually happened)
>
"Good one General, I chortle again. First you tell me you can’t have
a war with platoon actions and then you tell me that is what did in
fact happen! You want to think on that a bit?"
This is why we lost as we NEVER invaded N. Vietnam. You can't win if
you keep your forces restricted to local firefights. You have to
advance and take away the enemies ability to make war, and this is
ususally done by taking their capital and industrial areas.
> > themselves, but rather large forces invading space. Show me where our
> > advisors invaded their space prior to 11/22/63.
>
"Ap Bac, January 2-3, 1963. I’ve already given you the American body
count on this one."
So you are saying they invaded Northern Vietnam? I just want to get
this right.
> > Of course individual soldiers would disagree if they are shot, but
> > this doesn't alter the big picture which was there was NO war in
> > Vietnam while JFK was alive.
>
"There was a war going on. Just because the U.S. was only playing a
small part at the time does not mean a war wasn’t going on. If there
was no war why didn’t we just leave????"
Because of greedy businessmen who wanted drugs and other resources.
You are trying to slip out of your lie by now claimig there was a war
between North and South Vietnam, but we are discussin our role in the
issue during JFK's term. Quit changing the subject.
> > There were no incursions into NV, there
> > were no major actions and there were no bombings.
>
"Aw General, you’re just making yourself look like shit here. I’m
embarrassed. The embryonic stage of OPLAN 34A began under JFK. True,
Americans didn’t go north but the “Advisors” ran the show of sending
Vietnamese into North Vietnam."
Are you really this clueless? This is EXACTLY what JFK wanted, to
have the Vietnamese defend their own country, not use US forces to do
it. You just proved my point.
"For major actions please see my “Small firefight war”, as you admit
it was “platoon action”. As for “no bombings” what the hell do you
think Kennedy sent bombers to Vietnam to do? Play pocket pool? They
were bombing the hell out of South Vietnam. Who do you think flew the
bombers?"
Prove it. Show me cites of major bombing raids against the Viet Cong
or any northern forces during his life.
> > You can wiggle all you want, but your point is full of crap.
>
"I’m not the one wiggling here General and I haven’t yet decided if
you are full of shit or just ignorant. Or both."
This guy proves my point and then still argues with me. Who is the
ignorant one I ask?
> > JFK was trying to end theissue by speeding up training of the SVA to free us of our
> > committment, but LBJ was not looking for a way out at all.
>
> The only ones that cry this crap are people like you and Marsh that
> are pissed because LBJ replaced your Prince. You cannot quote me one
> historian of note that claims LBJ wanted the Vietnam War. You should
> read “Shadows of Vietnam, Frank Vandiver to learn a bit about LBJ’s
> entry into the war. For god sake read something about Vietnam if you
> are going to persist in discussing it.
>
> > "Ah, your opinion again. Keep in mind, General, that NASM 263 was
> > built on false reports. It didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of
> > coming true. Had anyone got off their ass and moved out into the
> > field to talk with John Paul Vann and some others they would have know
> > this."
>
> > You are right, and my opinion is based on facts. JFK believed without
> > a firm deadline the SVA would have no incentive to take up the cause,
> > and this is being borne out in Iraq now. He may have extended the
> > training period by some months, but he would not have made the logical
> > leap to war like you keep saying.
>
"For the fifteenth time I didn’t say JFK would have leaped into a
bigger war. I say he wasn’t going to abandon SVN. We don’t know what
he would have done about the worsening conditions in VN."
Prove it. I have been asking for something signed by him that showed
he had NO intention of abandoning VN, but you can't ever provide it.
"The “logical leap to war”? Logical? You’re confused again aren’t
you."
You have memory issues as well. You said JFK would have started a war
like LBJ did because of the northern Vietnameses' attacks into the
south in 1965. I'm saying prove it.
>
> > "NSAM 263 makes no plan B, what to do if the plan fails. It doesn’t
> > deal with the instability in the SVG after Diem’s death and it doesn’t
> > deal with intact NVA regiments moving into SV in 1964. What would JFK
> > done about this? We don’t know, despite your crystal ball."
>
> > I think that is the whole point, JFK was going to make sure it did not
> > fail,
>
"I realize you think the man walked on water but I can assure you JFK
didn’t have the power to make NSAM 263 com true."
Same tired old LN argument. They say you hero worship LHO because
they provide NO proof or evidence to show his guilt. Now this guy
says I think JFK was like Jesus because his stated policies said he
did NOT want a major land war in SE Asia or anywhere else. His
actions during crucial times like the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missle
Crisis show he was for peace, but all this is out the window for Bill.
He thinks the guy would just change his thoughts and start a war in
Vietnam. It was all bull. South Vietnam fell and we all survived.
It wasn't worth 58,000 lives and many more wounded to delay the
inevitable. You are the one expressing OPINION now.
>
> > even if they were not fully trained he would have left as it was
> > not our conflict.
>
"your opinion again. It means little."
This from a man who just said JFK couldn't inforce NSAM 263. Talk
about expressing opinions.
>
> > All that junk of becoming communist meant very
> > little to most Americans,
>
"My god man, JFK had us building bomb shelters. Even in the early
1960s we all thought the communist were coming for us. Obvious you
weren’t there at the time."
This tells me who I'm dealing with now. Bomb shelters were at their
height in the 1950's under Eisenhower. Yes there was a bump after the
Cuban Missile Crisis, but if JFK was not the president they would have
been moot as the war hawks wanted a war, even a nuclear one.
>
> > He would also have had the SVA ready to defend their country rather than
> > making it an American problem.-
>
"See “walked on water."
How is making a country defend their own boarder equal to "walking on
water?" JFK did not believe in making us the world's police, and I
wish he had lived because we could sure use more president's like him.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
The claim that the "military-industrial complex" had JFK assassinated
losing in Vietnam. From the 1950s he had been espoused the domino
theory, saying "that a Communist takeover in Indo-China would imperil
Burma, Thailand and other independent states." Privately he told Dean
Rusk, "'If we have to fight in SEAsia, lets fight in Vietnam. The
Vietnamese, at least, are committed and will fight. There are a
million refugees from Communism in S. Vietnam. Vietnam is the place.'"
On many occasions JFK publicly rejected withdrawal, announcing his
determination to stay in South Vietnam to defeat the "Communist
aggression" against it because "For us to withdraw from this effort
would begin a collapse not only of South Vietnam but of Southeast
Asia. So we are going to stay there." This theme was emphatically
reiterated in the speech he was going to give in Dallas the day he was
YoHarvey
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How is making a country defend their own boarder equal to "walking on
water?" JFK did not believe in making us the world's police, and I
wish he had lived because we could sure use more president's like
him.
Like him? JFK was more style than substance. He had the singular
ability to make Americans believe in a future. Politically, he
accomplished virtually nothing in his thousand days in office. Even
his position on civil rights was politically motivated. RFK was the
one this country should miss.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2:33 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> JFK inherited the "Nixon" plan just like the Bay of Pigs. Nixon, if
> he won, of course wouldn't have kept them to the roles of "advisors"
> though, he would have started the war much sooner.
You don’t k now what Nixon would have done any more than you know what
JFK would have done. You have got to separate your opinions (which
are rather fucked up) from fact.
> "I assume you mean the VC since only two or three regiments of the NVA
> came down in 1964 and they kept a rather low profile. 1965 is a
> different story."
>
> Whoever, cite major battles prior to JFK's death.
Well, which is it smart boy? The VC or the NVA? I’ve already cited
you one well documented. If you can’t learn something it isn’t my
problem.
> "Did you not understand what I told you about it being a small
> firefight war at the time?"
>
> Small firefights are NOT a war, in fact, they called the Korean
> conflict a "police action" and we know they had larger battles than
> Vietnam under JFK. I guess you are full of crap as usual.
No Dumbo, you are full of shit. It remained a guerrilla war while JFK
was in office. You do not have major battles like the Normandy
Invasion in a guerrilla war. Why can’t you understand this? Can you
cite major battles for our long counterinsurgent war in the
Philippines? No! How about the British in Malaya? No! How about
Castro before he became strong enough to come down from the
mountains? No! Please try to pull your head out of your ass and
understand this.
> "If you wish to learn about Ap Bac, and you should, a good source is
> “A Bright Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan beginning on page 206. You
> really need to read the book to understand what was happening in
> Vietnam during this time period."
>
> You are skirting the issue Bill, you said we had A WAR going under
> JFK, a war connotates major battles. I want cites of major battles
> under JFK.
Please see above about your “major battles” horseshit.
> "Oh hell fire son, the fucking French haven’t won one sine Napoleon.
> After they got ran out of Vietnam they proceeded to get their ass ran
> out of Algeria."
>
> Ignorant of WWI history I see. The French were bled dry in that war
> and lost their will to fight for sometime, but they did redeem
> themselves in WWII after they joined the Allied forces in 1943.
I suppose that in your confused state you think Germany rolling over
France like a steam roller in WWII is redeeming. I don’t. They got
their ass kicked in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Algeria and every other
place. Not bad soldiers but some of the worst civilian and military
leaders I’ve ever seen.
> This DOESN'T cut it!!! I want cites from you on MAJOR battles as you
> said JFK had a war going on. I don't want local firefights as
> proof.
Once again Dumbo, see above about your major battle crap. And once
again, if a war wasn’t going on then what was our problem? We could
pack up and go home. Why didn’t Kennedy pack up and come home in
1962?
> This is why we lost as we NEVER invaded N. Vietnam. You can't win if
> you keep your forces restricted to local firefights. You have to
> advance and take away the enemies ability to make war, and this is
> ususally done by taking their capital and industrial areas.
Damn General, you want to bring China into boots on the ground. This
is a cry of the far right and as so often the case full of shit. The
war was in the south and that is where it had to be won, not so much
with military force only but with political power also. I’ll grant
you that the sanctuaries of Laos and Cambodia would have to be taken
out but it could have been won without invading the north.
> > > themselves, but rather large forces invading space. Show me where our
> > > advisors invaded their space prior to 11/22/63.
>
> "Ap Bac, January 2-3, 1963. I’ve already given you the American body
> count on this one."
>
> So you are saying they invaded Northern Vietnam? I just want to get
> this right.
No, Dumbo I didn’t say that. Do you think Ap Bac was in North
Vietnam? You really need to read. There were 350-400 communist at Ap
Bac and we invaded their space there. I’ve already given you the
American body count for that one.
> > > Of course individual soldiers would disagree if they are shot, but
> > > this doesn't alter the big picture which was there was NO war in
> > > Vietnam while JFK was alive.
>
> "There was a war going on. Just because the U.S. was only playing a
> small part at the time does not mean a war wasn’t going on. If there
> was no war why didn’t we just leave????"
>
> Because of greedy businessmen who wanted drugs and other resources.
> You are trying to slip out of your lie by now claimig there was a war
> between North and South Vietnam, but we are discussin our role in the
> issue during JFK's term. Quit changing the subject.
Are you saying that greedy business men controlled the Vietnam War and
not JFK? Damn! That won’t make the Camelot crowd happy.
> > > There were no incursions into NV, there
> > > were no major actions and there were no bombings.
>
> "Aw General, you’re just making yourself look like shit here. I’m
> embarrassed. The embryonic stage of OPLAN 34A began under JFK. True,
> Americans didn’t go north but the “Advisors” ran the show of sending
> Vietnamese into North Vietnam."
>
> Are you really this clueless? This is EXACTLY what JFK wanted, to
> have the Vietnamese defend their own country, not use US forces to do
> it. You just proved my point.
Because you missed my point, I knew I should have answered the
question for you. American bombers were bombing hell out of South
Vietnam. I asked if you knew who was flying the bombers. It was U.S.
pilots dumbass. It was Americans flying the helicopters into Ap
Bac.
> "For major actions please see my “Small firefight war”, as you admit
> it was “platoon action”. As for “no bombings” what the hell do you
> think Kennedy sent bombers to Vietnam to do? Play pocket pool? They
> were bombing the hell out of South Vietnam. Who do you think flew the
> bombers?"
>
> Prove it. Show me cites of major bombing raids against the Viet Cong
> or any northern forces during his life.
Please see again, Guerilla warfare.
> "For the fifteenth time I didn’t say JFK would have leaped into a
> bigger war. I say he wasn’t going to abandon SVN. We don’t know what
> he would have done about the worsening conditions in VN."
>
> Prove it. I have been asking for something signed by him that showed
> he had NO intention of abandoning VN, but you can't ever provide it.
Well dumbass, you are asking me to prove a negative which is
impossible. On the other hand, you could prove the positive and show
a signed order by JFK to abandon SVN. Can you do that? No, you
can’t.
> You have memory issues as well. You said JFK would have started a war
> like LBJ did because of the northern Vietnameses' attacks into the
> south in 1965. I'm saying prove it.
I never said that and you are a liar by saying I did. You prove I
said it. It should be easy.
> "I realize you think the man walked on water but I can assure you JFK
> didn’t have the power to make NSAM 263 com true."
>
> Same tired old LN argument. They say you hero worship LHO because
> they provide NO proof or evidence to show his guilt. Now this guy
> says I think JFK was like Jesus because his stated policies said he
> did NOT want a major land war in SE Asia or anywhere else. His
> actions during crucial times like the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missle
> Crisis show he was for peace, but all this is out the window for Bill.
My god you stupid fucker. He was CIC during the Bay of Pigs. You
call that a peaceful occasion? If he had been such a dove he would
never have let it go forward. You call the barricade of Cuba a
peaceful thing? Damn good thing the communist turned back.
> > > even if they were not fully trained he would have left as it was
> > > not our conflict.
>
> "your opinion again. It means little."
>
> This from a man who just said JFK couldn't inforce NSAM 263. Talk
> about expressing opinions.
To do this would have required the cooperation of the Northern
communist as well as the SVG. No one, including JFK, ever had such
cooperation. It was foolish to think anyone would. This is not my
opinion but historical fact.
Bill Clarke
tomnln
This theme was emphatically reiterated in the speech he was going to give in
Dallas the day he was killed.
LYING COCKROACH !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/dallas_speech.htm
Dallas speech from the JFK Library.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 29, 3:52 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 2:33 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > JFK inherited the "Nixon" plan just like the Bay of Pigs. Nixon, if
> > he won, of course wouldn't have kept them to the roles of "advisors"
> > though, he would have started the war much sooner.
>
"You don’t k now what Nixon would have done any more than you know
what JFK would have done. You have got to separate your opinions
(which are rather fucked up) from fact."
This guy is amazingly stupid. Nixon became president in 1969 and
despite running on a platform of ending the war he EXPANDED it, so
yes, I do know what he would have done in 1961. He also had the
invasion of Cuba on the board. Don't you read history at all?
> > "I assume you mean the VC since only two or three regiments of the NVA
> > came down in 1964 and they kept a rather low profile. 1965 is a
> > different story."
>
> > Whoever, cite major battles prior to JFK's death.
>
"Well, which is it smart boy? The VC or the NVA? I’ve already cited
you one well documented. If you can’t learn something it isn’t my
problem."
More distraction as he CAN'T cite any major battles despite his claim
JFK had started a war in Vietnam. Just another liar on the board.
> > "Did you not understand what I told you about it being a small
> > firefight war at the time?"
>
> > Small firefights are NOT a war, in fact, they called the Korean
> > conflict a "police action" and we know they had larger battles than
> > Vietnam under JFK. I guess you are full of crap as usual.
>
"No Dumbo, you are full of shit. It remained a guerrilla war while
JFK was in office. You do not have major battles like the Normandy
Invasion in a guerrilla war. Why can’t you understand this?"
No shit Sherlock, you are the one saying there were major battles
because you said JFK started a war, now you want to backtrack and act
like it was just a small guerrilla conflict because you CAN'T provide
cites for major battles. You are full of crap. The only war started
with your beloved LBJ.
"Can you cite major battles for our long counterinsurgent war in the
Philippines? No!"
Yes, Manila, Bataan, Corregidor and Luzon to name some. You are
clueless.
"How about the British in Malaya? No!"
Yes, Malaya and Singapore. Do you ever pick up a history book?
"How about Castro before he became strong enough to come down from the
> mountains? No!"
I don't know this as well, but I would assume he had to take some
major cities, like Havanna, to win the war.
"Please try to pull your head out of your ass and understand this."
The ONLY person with their head in their ass is YOU!! I suggest you
pick up some history books at the library.
> > "If you wish to learn about Ap Bac, and you should, a good source is
> > “A Bright Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan beginning on page 206. You
> > really need to read the book to understand what was happening in
> > Vietnam during this time period."
>
> > You are skirting the issue Bill, you said we had A WAR going under
> > JFK, a war connotates major battles. I want cites of major battles
> > under JFK.
>
"Please see above about your “major battles” horseshit."
Nice try fibber, but you have shown your failure to back up your
bullcrap assertions.
> > "Oh hell fire son, the fucking French haven’t won one sine Napoleon.
> > After they got ran out of Vietnam they proceeded to get their ass ran
> > out of Algeria."
>
> > Ignorant of WWI history I see. The French were bled dry in that war
> > and lost their will to fight for sometime, but they did redeem
> > themselves in WWII after they joined the Allied forces in 1943.
>
"I suppose that in your confused state you think Germany rolling over
France like a steam roller in WWII is redeeming. I don’t. They got
their ass kicked in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Algeria and every other place.
Not bad soldiers but some of the worst civilian and military leaders
I’ve ever seen."
Do you know anything about history? My guess is NO!! France was NOT
steamrolled in WWI as they held the Germans after they made good
progress and basically the front did not move more than a couple of
miles in the next four years. Germany did not make it to Paris in
WWI. Yes, the Germans did win easily in WWII but this was due to the
French high command thinking in terms of WWI (trench warfare) rather
than the new tank style the Germans were using. In case you forgot,
we got our asses kicked in Vietnam as well so I wouldn't be pointing
any fingers. Your opinion is not needed.
> > This DOESN'T cut it!!! I want cites from you on MAJOR battles as you
> > said JFK had a war going on. I don't want local firefights as
> > proof.
>
"Once again Dumbo, see above about your major battle crap. And once
again, if a war wasn’t going on then what was our problem? We could
pack up and go home. Why didn’t Kennedy pack up and come home in
1962?"
You claimed JFK started a war, so I want major battle cites and cites
for us invading North Vietnam. The longer it takes the more of a
fibber you become. The problem was propping up the South Vietnamese
government, if we would have left they would have collasped
immediately. JFK did not want the country to go communist, but he
also did not want us to prevent it. He felt the South Vietnamese
should defend their own country.
> > This is why we lost as we NEVER invaded N. Vietnam. You can't win if
> > you keep your forces restricted to local firefights. You have to
> > advance and take away the enemies ability to make war, and this is
> > ususally done by taking their capital and industrial areas.
>
"Damn General, you want to bring China into boots on the ground. This
is a cry of the far right and as so often the case full of shit."
This is why JFK did NOT want a land war. What was the point of
fighting there when you never plan on invading them and winning?
"The war was in the south and that is where it had to be won, not so
much with military force only but with political power also. I’ll
grant you that the sanctuaries of Laos and Cambodia would have to be
taken out but it could have been won without invading the north."
Since when do you win a war by NOT invading the enemy's territory?
What makes them quit if we never take away their land and industrial
capability? You are clueless on how wars are won as well.
> > > > themselves, but rather large forces invading space. Show me where our
> > > > advisors invaded their space prior to 11/22/63.
>
> > "Ap Bac, January 2-3, 1963. I’ve already given you the American body
> > count on this one."
>
> > So you are saying they invaded Northern Vietnam? I just want to get
> > this right.
"No, Dumbo I didn’t say that. Do you think Ap Bac was in North
Vietnam? You really need to read. There were 350-400 communist at Ap
Bac and we invaded their space there. I’ve already given you the
American body count for that one."
I'm dumbo when he is claiming all kinds of things he CAN'T cite or
prove. Go figure. JFK started a WAR according to him. We invaded the
north according to him. I don't need to read as you are the one
making assertions not me. You gave the above example of our invasion
of the north, not me. Good, cite this incursion into North Vietnam, I
don't just want your word for it.
> > > > Of course individual soldiers would disagree if they are shot, but
> > > > this doesn't alter the big picture which was there was NO war in
> > > > Vietnam while JFK was alive.
>
> > "There was a war going on. Just because the U.S. was only playing a
> > small part at the time does not mean a war wasn’t going on. If there
> > was no war why didn’t we just leave????"
>
> > Because of greedy businessmen who wanted drugs and other resources.
> > You are trying to slip out of your lie by now claimig there was a war
> > between North and South Vietnam, but we are discussin our role in the
> > issue during JFK's term. Quit changing the subject.
>
"Are you saying that greedy business men controlled the Vietnam War
and not JFK? Damn! That won’t make the Camelot crowd happy."
FOR the last time, there was NO war during JFK's term in office. Cite
it if you can. Greedy businessman, the military and the CIA had their
eyes on many prizes in Vietnam. Sad to burst your bubble but drugs
provide much money to many countries' economies and we wanted the
heroin there very badly. Look at the news now, we are launching an
offensive in Afghanistan now against the poppy fields, of course we
are using the cover story of "flushing out terrorists" but it is about
control of the drugs.
> > > > There were no incursions into NV, there
> > > > were no major actions and there were no bombings.
>
> > "Aw General, you’re just making yourself look like shit here. I’m
> > embarrassed. The embryonic stage of OPLAN 34A began under JFK. True,
> > Americans didn’t go north but the “Advisors” ran the show of sending
> > Vietnamese into North Vietnam."
>
> > Are you really this clueless? This is EXACTLY what JFK wanted, to
> > have the Vietnamese defend their own country, not use US forces to do
> > it. You just proved my point.
>
"Because you missed my point, I knew I should have answered the
question for you. American bombers were bombing hell out of South
Vietnam. I asked if you knew who was flying the bombers. It was U.S.
pilots dumbass. It was Americans flying the helicopters into Ap Bac."
Cite all this bombing then during JFK's term. It is a simple request,
why don't you do it?
> > "For major actions please see my “Small firefight war”, as you admit
> > it was “platoon action”. As for “no bombings” what the hell do you
> > think Kennedy sent bombers to Vietnam to do? Play pocket pool? They
> > were bombing the hell out of South Vietnam. Who do you think flew the
> > bombers?"
>
> > Prove it. Show me cites of major bombing raids against the Viet Cong
> > or any northern forces during his life.
>
"Please see again, Guerilla warfare."
Why? This proves nothing against your assertions. You said a war was
going on and JFK started it. I want cites of major offensives and
battles.
> > "For the fifteenth time I didn’t say JFK would have leaped into a
> > bigger war. I say he wasn’t going to abandon SVN. We don’t know what
> > he would have done about the worsening conditions in VN."
>
> > Prove it. I have been asking for something signed by him that showed
> > he had NO intention of abandoning VN, but you can't ever provide it.
>
"Well dumbass, you are asking me to prove a negative which is
impossible. On the other hand, you could prove the positive and show
a signed order by JFK to abandon SVN. Can you do that? No, you
can’t."
No I'm not. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that JFK would
not have left Vietnam in 1965. It is easy, find me documents with his
signature that showed he was going to stay until they "won their
contest". Why can't you do this?
> > You have memory issues as well. You said JFK would have started a war
> > like LBJ did because of the northern Vietnameses' attacks into the
> > south in 1965. I'm saying prove it.
>
"I never said that and you are a liar by saying I did. You prove I
said it. It should be easy."
Nice try to wiggle out of it. I'm not going to be diverted as you are
the one making claims he can't support. You said JFK would have done
the same things as LBJ, so I'm saying prove it. I want cites for
documents he signed showing he would never leave until they won
against the communists. You haven't produced them in months, so I
guess we know who the liar is.
> > "I realize you think the man walked on water but I can assure you JFK
> > didn’t have the power to make NSAM 263 com true."
>
> > Same tired old LN argument. They say you hero worship LHO because
> > they provide NO proof or evidence to show his guilt. Now this guy
> > says I think JFK was like Jesus because his stated policies said he
> > did NOT want a major land war in SE Asia or anywhere else. His
> > actions during crucial times like the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missle
> > Crisis show he was for peace, but all this is out the window for Bill.
>
"My god you stupid fucker. He was CIC during the Bay of Pigs. You
call that a peaceful occasion? If he had been such a dove he would
never have let it go forward. You call the barricade of Cuba a
peaceful thing? Damn good thing the communist turned back."
This was a go before he was elected. He did not feel like he should
stop it so soon into his administration. He was lied to (like you are
doing) and the CIA and military tried to force him into invading
Cuba. He was told this was essential as as a president-elect he did
not feel comfortable bucking his military and CIA advisors so soon.
Do you NOT read any history? He barricaded Cuba to avoid a nuclear
war moron. The war hawks wanted us to invade and this would have
caused them to fire nuclear weapons. He prevented this with his
peaceful negotiations.
> > > > even if they were not fully trained he would have left as it was
> > > > not our conflict.
>
> > "your opinion again. It means little."
>
> > This from a man who just said JFK couldn't inforce NSAM 263. Talk
> > about expressing opinions.
>
"To do this would have required the cooperation of the Northern
communist as well as the SVG. No one, including JFK, ever had such
cooperation. It was foolish to think anyone would. This is not my
opinion but historical fact."
NSAM had nothing to do with the north, it addressed having the SVA
fully trained and ready to fight for themselves. Can't you get
anything right?
aeffects
> On Apr 24, 7:35 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You can waste your time reading the cut-and-paste opinions copied by a
> > troll...........
>
> > ....or you can see and hear from the people who were THERE in their
> > OWN words.
>
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Icbzk8mg8
>
> > MORE
>
> >www.youtube.com/GJJdude
>
> roflmao, roflmao....he is soooooooooooooooo easy to rattle roflmao,
> roflmao. The ignorant usually are.
you can ALWAYS tell when this Lone Nut moron is at a brickwall.... he
dives for momma's skirt...... c'mon ONI gird dem loins.....
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 29, 11:13 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> "You don’t k now what Nixon would have done any more than you know
> what JFK would have done. You have got to separate your opinions
> (which are rather fucked up) from fact."
>
> This guy is amazingly stupid. Nixon became president in 1969 and
> despite running on a platform of ending the war he EXPANDED it, so
> yes, I do know what he would have done in 1961. He also had the
> invasion of Cuba on the board. Don't you read history at all?
What Nixon did was to begin withdrawing American troops from SVN in
1969 and this continued on a rather rapid march until all U.S. combat
troops were out of SVN (late 1972). Now, smart boy, following your
fucked up logic that Nixon would have done in 1961 what he did in 1969
we see that all American combat troops would have been removed from
Vietnam in the first phase of Nixon’s withdrawals in 1961 (Your Goofy
Logic). Then Nixon would have “saved us” from Vietnam! Ha!
Yes, I read a bit of history. Enough to know that Nixon was out of
power when the Bay of Pigs went down. So I guess I’ve read more than
your stupid ass.
> More distraction as he CAN'T cite any major battles despite his claim
> JFK had started a war in Vietnam. Just another liar on the board.
I still can’t decide if you are a liar or just stupid as hell. Never
the less, enough of your bullshit about “Major” operations in a
guerrilla war and I’ll be snipping all that crap from your post. If
you insist in remaining that stupid so be it. You might, however, ask
yourself why they call it: guerrilla WAR, Insurgent WAR,
Counterinsurgent WAR, WARS of Liberation and so on. Your theory that
a war requires something like the Normandy Invasion to be called a war
is one more indication of what a stupid shit you are.
> No shit Sherlock, you are the one saying there were major battles
> because you said JFK started a war, now you want to backtrack and act
> like it was just a small guerrilla conflict because you CAN'T provide
> cites for major battles. You are full of crap. The only war started
> with your beloved LBJ.
You are lying about what I have said. Unlike your fucked up ass I
don’t think a war requires your “Major Operations”.
> "Damn General, you want to bring China into boots on the ground. This
> is a cry of the far right and as so often the case full of shit."
>
> This is why JFK did NOT want a land war. What was the point of
> fighting there when you never plan on invading them and winning?
>
> "The war was in the south and that is where it had to be won, not so
> much with military force only but with political power also. I’ll
> grant you that the sanctuaries of Laos and Cambodia would have to be
> taken out but it could have been won without invading the north."
>
> Since when do you win a war by NOT invading the enemy's territory?
> What makes them quit if we never take away their land and industrial
> capability? You are clueless on how wars are won as well.
I get a grin out of someone so ignorant of war telling me I’m
clueless. Let us see now, Hotshot. I don’t believe Ho and his boys
invaded France. I don’t believe Ho and his boys took Paris. I’m
pretty sure Ho and his boys didn’t take Saigon and Hanoi, French
headquarters at this time. Yet, I’d have to say Ho and his boys won
that war with the French. What say ye, smart boy.
> > > > > themselves, but rather large forces invading space. Show me where our
> > > > > advisors invaded their space prior to 11/22/63.
>
> > > "Ap Bac, January 2-3, 1963. I’ve already given you the American body
> > > count on this one."
>
> > > So you are saying they invaded Northern Vietnam? I just want to get
> > > this right.
>
> "No, Dumbo I didn’t say that. Do you think Ap Bac was in North
> Vietnam? You really need to read. There were 350-400 communist at Ap
> Bac and we invaded their space there. I’ve already given you the
> American body count for that one."
>
> I'm dumbo when he is claiming all kinds of things he CAN'T cite or
> prove. Go figure. JFK started a WAR according to him. We invaded the
> north according to him. I don't need to read as you are the one
> making assertions not me. You gave the above example of our invasion
> of the north, not me. Good, cite this incursion into North Vietnam, I
> don't just want your word for it.
You are lying about what I said. Why do you have to lie? Ap Bac was
in South Vietnam, dumbass.
> "Are you saying that greedy business men controlled the Vietnam War
> and not JFK? Damn! That won’t make the Camelot crowd happy."
>
> FOR the last time, there was NO war during JFK's term in office.
Then why did the U.S. have a rather large presence there during JFK's
term in office?
> Cite all this bombing then during JFK's term. It is a simple request,
> why don't you do it?
I just believe I will. Here is a good start for you to begin learning
something about Vietnam. “A Bright Shining Lie”, Neil Sheehan, page
113. "The bombing was worsening with each month as Anthis and his
staff steadily built the power of their hybrid Vietnamese-American air
force. At the end of 1961 the VNAF had owned about seventy aircraft.
By September 1962 Saigon’s air force had twice that number of planes,
although the pilot was as likely to be an American as a Vietnamese and
the U.S. Air Force itself had more than a third again as many Farm
Gate aircraft."
"Vann had been watching it rise in the rapidly expanding number of
attack sorties and thus the rapidly increasing tonnage of bombs,
rockets, and napalm the planes were releasing on the countryside. The
sorties had nearly quadrupled, from 251 in January 1962 to 985 by
August, and the upward curve gave no indication of leveling off."
"By September (1962) the fighter-bombers were blasting away an average
of more than a hundred “structures” a week,"
> Why? This proves nothing against your assertions. You said a war was
> going on and JFK started it. I want cites of major offensives and
> battles.
The liar here is you, dickhead. You lie about what I’ve said and then
ask me to prove this lie. I ask again, are you the illegitimate son
of Anthony Marsh?
> Nice try to wiggle out of it. I'm not going to be diverted as you are
> the one making claims he can't support. You said JFK would have done
> the same things as LBJ, so I'm saying prove it. I want cites for
> documents he signed showing he would never leave until they won
> against the communists. You haven't produced them in months, so I
> guess we know who the liar is.
The liar here is you, dickhead. You lie about what I’ve said and then
ask me to prove this lie. I ask again, are you the illegitimate son
of Anthony Marsh?
> This was a go before he was elected. He did not feel like he should
> stop it so soon into his administration. He was lied to (like you are
> doing) and the CIA and military tried to force him into invading
> Cuba. He was told this was essential as as a president-elect he did
> not feel comfortable bucking his military and CIA advisors so soon.
> Do you NOT read any history? He barricaded Cuba to avoid a nuclear
> war moron. The war hawks wanted us to invade and this would have
> caused them to fire nuclear weapons. He prevented this with his
> peaceful negotiations.
A barricade is not “peaceful” negotiations, dumbass. And I’m sure you
know that the barricade wouldn’t have produced the same nuclear
response from Russia. We are very luck, as was JFK that the communist
blinked here.
> NSAM had nothing to do with the north, it addressed having the SVA
> fully trained and ready to fight for themselves. Can't you get
> anything right?
I ask the same of you. True, NSAM 263 didn’t have to do with the NVA
but, stupid, the NVA had much to do with the failure of NSAM 263. I’m
surprised a sharp cat like you missed that one.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 30, 5:48 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 11:13 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > "You don’t k now what Nixon would have done any more than you know
> > what JFK would have done. You have got to separate your opinions
> > (which are rather fucked up) from fact."
>
> > This guy is amazingly stupid. Nixon became president in 1969 and
> > despite running on a platform of ending the war he EXPANDED it, so
> > yes, I do know what he would have done in 1961. He also had the
> > invasion of Cuba on the board. Don't you read history at all?
>
"What Nixon did was to begin withdrawing American troops from SVN in
1969 and this continued on a rather rapid march until all U.S. combat
troops were out of SVN (late 1972). Now, smart boy, following your
fucked up logic that Nixon would have done in 1961 what he did in 1969
we see that all American combat troops would have been removed from
Vietnam in the first phase of Nixon’s withdrawals in 1961 (Your Goofy
Logic). Then Nixon would have “saved us” from Vietnam! Ha!"
He did not withdraw troops, he expanded the war and the major battles
came in 1970-1972 when the cities became involved. If he was
withdrawing troops as you say why did take until 1975 to have peace?
Nixon would have expanded the war from the get go in 1961 as he served
the war hawks.
"Yes, I read a bit of history. Enough to know that Nixon was out of
power when the Bay of Pigs went down. So I guess I’ve read more than
your stupid ass."
The Bay of Pigs was his plan, it doesn't matter if he was not
officially the president. It failed because JFK was lied to about the
real goal - invading Cuba. Nixon worked for many groups, chiefly
among them was the Mafia and they were demanding to get back into Cuba
for their casinos.
> > More distraction as he CAN'T cite any major battles despite his claim
> > JFK had started a war in Vietnam. Just another liar on the board.
>
"I still can’t decide if you are a liar or just stupid as hell. Never
the less, enough of your bullshit about “Major” operations in a
guerrilla war and I’ll be snipping all that crap from your post. If
you insist in remaining that stupid so be it. You might, however, ask
yourself why they call it: guerrilla WAR, Insurgent WAR,
Counterinsurgent WAR, WARS of Liberation and so on. Your theory that
a war requires something like the Normandy Invasion to be called a war
is one more indication of what a stupid shit you are."
Notice how he turns this around on me, he was the one to claim JFK
would never leave Vietnam, and he was the one to claim there was a war
when JFK was in office. I remember being the one to say it was a
guerrilla war, and he scoffed, now that I demand cites for major
battles and the invading of the north to justify his claim that there
was a war going on, he tries to shift the focus to me. I'm not
confused about you, you are a liar and not a bright one.
> > No shit Sherlock, you are the one saying there were major battles
> > because you said JFK started a war, now you want to backtrack and act
> > like it was just a small guerrilla conflict because you CAN'T provide
> > cites for major battles. You are full of crap. The only war started
> > with your beloved LBJ.
>
"You are lying about what I have said. Unlike your fucked up ass I
don’t think a war requires your “Major Operations”."
You know I'm not, and no one in their right mind would call a bunch of
tiny guerrilla actions a war. You said JFK started a war and can't
back it up. This is typical for LNers, they make assertions they
can't support.
> > "Damn General, you want to bring China into boots on the ground. This
> > is a cry of the far right and as so often the case full of shit."
>
> > This is why JFK did NOT want a land war. What was the point of
> > fighting there when you never plan on invading them and winning?
>
> > "The war was in the south and that is where it had to be won, not so
> > much with military force only but with political power also. I’ll
> > grant you that the sanctuaries of Laos and Cambodia would have to be
> > taken out but it could have been won without invading the north."
>
> > Since when do you win a war by NOT invading the enemy's territory?
> > What makes them quit if we never take away their land and industrial
> > capability? You are clueless on how wars are won as well.
>
"I get a grin out of someone so ignorant of war telling me I’m
clueless. Let us see now, Hotshot. I don’t believe Ho and his boys
invaded France. I don’t believe Ho and his boys took Paris. I’m
pretty sure Ho and his boys didn’t take Saigon and Hanoi, French
headquarters at this time. Yet, I’d have to say Ho and his boys won
that war with the French. What say ye, smart boy."
Is it possible to be this dumb?? I'm talking about the battlefield
area and taking the key things there. Only a moron would think they
would march across the steps, the middle east and all of Europe to
take Paris so they could win a war in Vietnam. I was talking about
seizing Hanoi and the key industrial sections of North Vietnam. Why
am I even talking with this guy?
> > > > > > themselves, but rather large forces invading space. Show me where our
> > > > > > advisors invaded their space prior to 11/22/63.
>
> > > > "Ap Bac, January 2-3, 1963. I’ve already given you the American body
> > > > count on this one."
>
> > > > So you are saying they invaded Northern Vietnam? I just want to get
> > > > this right.
>
> > "No, Dumbo I didn’t say that. Do you think Ap Bac was in North
> > Vietnam? You really need to read. There were 350-400 communist at Ap
> > Bac and we invaded their space there. I’ve already given you the
> > American body count for that one."
>
> > I'm dumbo when he is claiming all kinds of things he CAN'T cite or
> > prove. Go figure. JFK started a WAR according to him. We invaded the
> > north according to him. I don't need to read as you are the one
> > making assertions not me. You gave the above example of our invasion
> > of the north, not me. Good, cite this incursion into North Vietnam, I
> > don't just want your word for it.
>
"You are lying about what I said. Why do you have to lie? Ap Bac was
in South Vietnam, dumbass."
You wish I was, but your words and stupidity is there for all to
read. Ap Bac was a very small firefight, hardly stuff wars are made
of by themselves.
> > "Are you saying that greedy business men controlled the Vietnam War
> > and not JFK? Damn! That won’t make the Camelot crowd happy."
>
> > FOR the last time, there was NO war during JFK's term in office.
>
"Then why did the U.S. have a rather large presence there during JFK's
presidency?"
Because he was interested in training them to fight for themselves as
soon as possible so we could leave. These troops were designated
"advisors" for this reason.
> > Cite all this bombing then during JFK's term. It is a simple request,
> > why don't you do it?
>
"I just believe I will. Here is a good start for you to begin
learning something about Vietnam. “A Bright Shining Lie”, Neil
Sheehan, page 113. "The bombing was worsening with each month as
Anthis and his staff steadily built the power of their hybrid
Vietnamese-American air force. At the end of 1961 the VNAF had owned
about seventy aircraft. By September 1962 Saigon’s air force had twice
that number of planes, although the pilot was as likely to be an
American as a Vietnamese and
the U.S. Air Force itself had more than a third again as many Farm
Gate aircraft."
What does this prove? It is not the American Air Force bombing the
enemy, but rather some American pilots training the SVAAF how to
bomb. It also fails to mention the targets these planes were bombing,
how come? Perhaps these were just training flights.
"Vann had been watching it rise in the rapidly expanding number of
attack sorties and thus the rapidly increasing tonnage of bombs,
rockets, and napalm the planes were releasing on the countryside. The
sorties had nearly quadrupled, from 251 in January 1962 to 985 by
August, and the upward curve gave no indication of leveling off."
"By September (1962) the fighter-bombers were blasting away an average
of more than a hundred “structures” a week,""
Why does it NOT mention the targets? Why is structures in
parentheses? These could easily be training raids.
> > Why? This proves nothing against your assertions. You said a war was
> > going on and JFK started it. I want cites of major offensives and
> > battles.
>
"The liar here is you, dickhead. You lie about what I’ve said and
then ask me to prove this lie. I ask again, are you the illegitimate
son of Anthony Marsh?"
Aw, poor little Billy is all upset, he may take his marbles home. I
am not lying about what you said, you are just pissed you have shown
you can't back up your assertions. You are a liar sir.
>
> > Nice try to wiggle out of it. I'm not going to be diverted as you are
> > the one making claims he can't support. You said JFK would have done
> > the same things as LBJ, so I'm saying prove it. I want cites for
> > documents he signed showing he would never leave until they won
> > against the communists. You haven't produced them in months, so I
> > guess we know who the liar is.
>
"The liar here is you, dickhead. You lie about what I’ve said and
then ask me to prove this lie. I ask again, are you the illegitimate
son of Anthony Marsh?"
He repeats his diatribe instead of providing proof, why? Why can't he
prove what he asserts?
>
> > This was a go before he was elected. He did not feel like he should
> > stop it so soon into his administration. He was lied to (like you are
> > doing) and the CIA and military tried to force him into invading
> > Cuba. He was told this was essential as as a president-elect he did
> > not feel comfortable bucking his military and CIA advisors so soon.
> > Do you NOT read any history? He barricaded Cuba to avoid a nuclear
> > war moron. The war hawks wanted us to invade and this would have
> > caused them to fire nuclear weapons. He prevented this with his
> > peaceful negotiations.
>
"A barricade is not “peaceful” negotiations, dumbass. And I’m sure
you know that the barricade wouldn’t have produced the same nuclear
response from Russia. We are very luck, as was JFK that the communist
blinked here."
Compared to a nuclear war it is moron. What are you talking about?
How do you blockade the largest land mass country on earth? They have
like a 1,000 or more ports.
>
> > NSAM had nothing to do with the north, it addressed having the SVA
> > fully trained and ready to fight for themselves. Can't you get
> > anything right?
>
"I ask the same of you. True, NSAM 263 didn’t have to do with the NVA
but, stupid, the NVA had much to do with the failure of NSAM 263. I’m
surprised a sharp cat like you missed that one."
NSAM 263 failed on 11/22/63 when JFK was mowed down, as they
immediately changed it. NSAM 263 was never given a chance to
succeed. I'm NOT surprised a slow, old cat like you missed that one.
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On Apr 30, 6:08 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 30, 5:48 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 29, 11:13 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
> > > "You don’t k now what Nixon would have done any more than you know
> > > what JFK would have done. You have got to separate your opinions
> > > (which are rather fucked up) from fact."
>
> > > This guy is amazingly stupid. Nixon became president in 1969 and
> > > despite running on a platform of ending the war he EXPANDED it, so
> > > yes, I do know what he would have done in 1961. He also had the
> > > invasion of Cuba on the board. Don't you read history at all?
>
> "What Nixon did was to begin withdrawing American troops from SVN in
> 1969 and this continued on a rather rapid march until all U.S. combat
> troops were out of SVN (late 1972). Now, smart boy, following your
> fucked up logic that Nixon would have done in 1961 what he did in 1969
> we see that all American combat troops would have been removed from
> Vietnam in the first phase of Nixon’s withdrawals in 1961 (Your Goofy
> Logic). Then Nixon would have “saved us” from Vietnam! Ha!"
>
> He did not withdraw troops, he expanded the war and the major battles
> came in 1970-1972 when the cities became involved.
I really didn’t realize how ignorant you are about Vietnam until your
reply here. I’m sorry I’ve been so hard on you but if you don’t know
that Nixon withdrew the troops and the cities came under attack (Your
Major Offensive) during TET 1968 then I see why we haven’t been able
to discuss this with any meaningful exchange. You simply don’t know
the first thing about American involvement in Vietnam. See below for
Nixon’s withdrawal from Vietnam. If you don’t like “A Better War”
then any general history book on Vietnam will tell you the same
thing. I suggest Karnow’s book, “Vietnam, A History” for starters.
In all honesty, if you are going to discuss Vietnam you should know
something about it.
“A Better War, Lewis Sorley.
Page 94, Bui Tin (you know him don’t you): “If the American forces had
not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us
severely”
Page 112: “During Laird’s four years in office the American presence
in Vietnam would be progressively reduced, then terminated
altogether.” Surely you know who Laird served under?
Page 128: “When President Nixon and Thieu met at Midway Island on 8
June 1969, they jointly announced that an initial increment of 25,000
U.S. troops would depart Vietnam during July and August.”
Page 178: “During 1969, 65,500 Americans were withdrawn from Vietnam
in two increments”.
Page 179: “As things turned out, the 1970 three-increment total
reached 140,000.”
Page 205: “Virtually on the eve of the Cambodian incursion President
Nixon had announced another huge decrement of U.S. forces in Vietnam,
150,000 over the next year.”
Page 308: President Nixon reacted by announcing that 70,000 more U.S.
troops-the largest single increment of the war-would be withdrawn from
Vietnam by May 1(1972)”.
> If he was withdrawing troops as you say why did take until 1975 to have peace?
Because ARVN (the SV army) hung on that long without us. This isn’t
due to JFK and his recommended General Westmoreland but due to General
Abrams who made great progress with the SVA.
> Nixon would have expanded the war from the get go in 1961 as he served
> the war hawks.
You don’t know what Nixon would have done. You didn’t even know he
withdrew American troops from Vietnam. So much for what you think you
know.
> You know I'm not, and no one in their right mind would call a bunch of
> tiny guerrilla actions a war. You said JFK started a war and can't
> back it up. This is typical for LNers, they make assertions they
> can't support.
The communist were operating with regimental strength and was met with
same. That isn’t tiny but I’ll excuse your ignorance of things
military. I’m pass comment on your fucked up notion that a war has to
have a Normandy Invasion before it can be called a war. That is
stupid.
> > > Since when do you win a war by NOT invading the enemy's territory?
> > > What makes them quit if we never take away their land and industrial
> > > capability? You are clueless on how wars are won as well.
>
> "I get a grin out of someone so ignorant of war telling me I’m
> clueless. Let us see now, Hotshot. I don’t believe Ho and his boys
> invaded France. I don’t believe Ho and his boys took Paris. I’m
> pretty sure Ho and his boys didn’t take Saigon and Hanoi, French
> headquarters at this time. Yet, I’d have to say Ho and his boys won
> that war with the French. What say ye, smart boy."
>
> Is it possible to be this dumb?? I'm talking about the battlefield
> area and taking the key things there.
Well, that isn’t what you said, General. You said their land,
industrial capability and I believe one time you mentioned having to
take the capital. For France all this stuff is in France, Not
Vietnam. So I was pricking you a bit. But, alas, you are still
wrong.
>Only a moron would think theywould march across the steps, the middle east and all of Europe to
> take Paris so they could win a war in Vietnam. I was talking about
> seizing Hanoi and the key industrial sections of North Vietnam. Why
> am I even talking with this guy?
Well, smart boy, the communist never seized Hanoi or Saigon from the
French either. So what you got now? The only reason I’m talking to
you is because I am personally offended by lies being told about
Vietnam. After your post of today I don’t think you are lying, I
think you just don’t know any better.
Sorry General, I left the blood and guts out to spare you. Often
civilians get sick at the sight of blood and guts. If it was training
it was very realistic because they were blowing the hell out of
civilians.
Here is a bit, same page. I’m tiring of doing your homework for you
and have about reached my limit.
“He (Porter) had invited Anthis to come down and take a look at the
corpses of the women and children his pilots were killing. “It was
not a question of some noncombatants; it was a question of mostly
noncombatants.” “All buildings were called “structures” in the reports
of the raids. This term removed the distinction between a hut that
had been erected by the guerrillas and the home of a peasant family.
The official reports naturally presented all “structures” as guerrilla
structures.”
READ DUMBO!
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
billc...@live.com
wrote:
> On May 2, 12:53 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
I see you posted a reply but I don’t see anything on the screen. Are
you speechless or what? I understand if you can't admit you were
wrong about Nixon withdrawing American Troops but it is going to be
hard for you to change history.
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 3, 5:47 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 12:53 am, billcla...@live.com wrote:
>
"I see you posted a reply but I don’t see anything on the screen. Are
you speechless or what? I understand if you can't admit you were
wrong about Nixon withdrawing American Troops but it is going to be
hard for you to change history.
Bill Clarke"
No, I am having issues posting from my computer. For some reason it
won't let me.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1233a0486d2694cc
>>> "Interesting how all the WC defenders are hawks and love to defame the memory of President Kennedy by calling him the worst thing they can think of, a hawk like them." <<<
A very odd statement (even for Tony M.). And an untrue statement too.
I merely was quoting President Kennedy's exact words from September
1963.
Somehow, per Anthony Marsh, this equals a desire on my part "to defame
the memory of President Kennedy".
A curious leap of logic indeed.