'There's just as much indication JFK would have EXPANDED Nam, like LBJ did'? Really- Talk about 'RANK' Speculation!!!
Fact: Dan Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers [PP- co-edited by none other than Noam Chomsky] has an ENTIRE Chapter on JFK's plans to all but completely withdraw from Vietnam by the end of his [assumed] 2nd term at end of 1968- but of-course he did NOT even live to see the end of his 1st term. The PP even confirms that JFK's NASM 263 did result in 1000 US troops being pulled out of 'Nam' by the end of Dec 1963.
Fact: The first US jet fighter bombers & B52 bombers were NOT even introduced into Vietnam- till the beginning of 1965 [Note Correction: LBJ first introduced Jet Fighter bombers vs N.Vietnam in Aug 1964 via 'Op Pierce Arrow' in response to that Gulf of Tonkin 'false-flag' {non}'Incident']! IE: During JFK's tenure the only US recon & 'combat' aircraft operating in 'Nam' were WWII type propellor planes & helicopters!!! Obviously going from WWII type propellor planes to Jet fighters & B52 bombers = a Massive escalation in fire-power!!!
Fact: When LBJ became POTUS [only due to the JFK Hit], there were 'only' 16000 US so-called military 'advisors' [aka 'non-combat' troops] in Vietnam. By 1967-68 LBJ MASSIVELY Escalated that to 550,000+ US Combat troops!!!
Thus IMO your assertion that JFK would have escalated in 'Nam' just as LBJ did, is more 'speculative' than the PP's chapter stating that JFK planned to get out of 'Nam' by the end of 1968- DUHH!!!
______________________________
Nixak*77* Bernie Karpf • 20 hours ago
The Bay of Pigs scheme was dreamed-up by Ike's VP 'Tricky Dick' Nixon & CIA chief Allen Dulles. They then handed it off to the incoming JFK, assuring him that the anti-Castro rebels would need NO support from the US military, beyond transport to Cuba's shores. That of-course turned out to be false! Duiles' real scheme was to 'mouse-trap' JFK into committing US forces, likely leading to a full scale US invasion of Cuba, or face a Bay of Pigs fiasco! But JFK refused to take Dulles' bait [& 'pressure' from the Joint Chiefs] & 'swallowed' the repercussions of the fiasco [of-course if JFK had rejected the scheme out-right he'd NOT have had to deal w the political fallout]. But JFK got so pissed that Dulles [& other top CIA officials] LIED to him about their real aim of their scheme, he FIRED long time CIA chief Dulles & his deputy Gen Cabell.
JFK was NO saint, but a politician. As such after selling the US public on his 'cold-warrior creds' to get elected, it would have been politically difficult for him to just pull-out of Vietnam as soon as he became POTUS. IMO JFK spent the first 1.5 to 2 yrs of his incomplete 1st term, basically in a holding pattern [some might say 'dancing on a knife's edge'] while trying to decide what to ultimately do about Vietnam. Finally he knew it was either get all the way in [to a quagmire] or figure-out how to get out! Based on the Pentagon Papers It seems he wanted OUT- by the end of his [presumed] 2nd term [= the end of 1968]. But of-course he never even lived to see the end of his 1st term.
This St Jimmy dude is offering RANK Speculation that JFK would have massively escalated in Vietnam, the same way that LBJ did! That's why I offered just a few key facts to show there was an obvious quantitative difference [IE: MASSIVE Escalation] between US activities in Vietnam, pre 1964 [JFK's watch] vs post Jan 1964 - 65 [LBJ's watch]!
FYI: It was Ike & 'Tricky Dick's' regime that began sending US 'non-combat' 'advisors' into Vietnam. JFK continued in the path begun by Ike's & 'Tricky Dick's' regime, increasing the number of US military 'advisors' from about 1000 [on Ik's watch] to +16,000.
____________________
Nixak*77* Saint Jimmy • a day ago
We don't have to speculate if JFK planned to get out of Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers [PP] released by Chomsky's long time comrade Dan Elsberg [& which were actually co-edited by Chomsky himself] has an entire CHAPTER on JFK's plans to withdraw from Vietnam by the end of his 2nd term [IE: end of 1968], except of-course he never even lived to see the end of his 1st term! FYI: The PP actually states that JFK's NASM 263 did indeed result in 1000 US troops being pulled out of Vietnam before the end of Dec 1963.
When RFK made that statement he was still part of LBJ's admin [as AG], & LBJ was HELL Bent on MASSIVE Escalation! IMO RFK was playing his cards 'close to his vest', cause he was in a rather 'precarious' situation. Yet when RFK left LBJ's regime to become the Jr Senator of NY State, & he publicly called for a phased withdrawal & even submitted plans to that effect!
-
-
Chomsky et-al can dismiss the significance of JFK hit as 'conspiracy theory', but I wonder how many 'leftists' of Chomsky's ilk, have read Fidel Castro's Sat, Nov 23, 1963 speech re the JFK Hit of the previous day! Those who've NOT read it, should. It's a real eye opener! So does Chomsky consider Castro a ['leftist'] JFK 'conspiracy theorist'? Did / Does Chomsky know more about the repercussions of the JFK hit vis-a-vis Cuba & Latin America more so than Castro??! I Don't think So!!!
-
-
PS: Is this what Chomsky's wrought w his anti-JFK {mis}'Analysis'? FYI: It was Ike & 'Tricky Dick' Nixon's regime along w the Dulles Boys / Bros that got the US into Vietnam right after Ho Chi Mihn kicked the French out! Thus JFK 'inherited' Vietnam from the Repug Ike-Nixon-Dulles regime, ditto for the Bay of Pigs Plan [fiasco]! Dulles & Tricky Dick deliberately misinformed JFK, that the anti-Castro rebels would NOT need any US military support beyond transport to Cuba's beach-head- of-course this turned out to be a LIE! Dulles' 'scheme' was to 'mouse-trap' JFK into committing US forces at the Bay of Pigs, which JFK refused to do! The whole fiasco pissed JFK off such that he fired CIA chief Dulles along w his deputy Gen Cabell- while stating he [JFK] wanted to 'Break the CIA into 1000 Pieces' for lying to him!!!
___________________
Nixak*77* Bernie Karpf • 20 hours ago
You say JFK wanted to stay in Vietnam another 5 yrs, others say he wanted to get OUT before the end of 1968 [many say before the end of 1965, but I'll go w what Ellsberg's PP says]. But we could ask the Vietnamese would they rather have faced no more than 16,000 - 20,000 US non-combat troops [at the max], & NO US jet fighters & B52 bombers as the US totally pulled out before 1969 -vs- facing 550,000+ US Combat troops & MASSIVE bombing from US Jet Fighter Bombers & B52 Bombers, w the US ultimately pulling out [getting driven out] in 1975!
Just for a bit of perspective, if the US had been with-drawing US 'non-combat' troops from a max of 16,000 - 20,000 down to less than 1000 - 1500, there likely would have been NO need for Ho Chi Mihn's TET Offensive!!!
What I find 'curious' is that folks like St Jimmy & his ilk [IE: Chomsky] seem to spend even more time blaming JFK for the Vietnam catastrophe, than either LBJ &/or Tricky Dick Nixon & Heinz Kissinger! Plus they seem to just give WAR-Mongering Gen / so-called 'moderate' Repug Dwight Eisenhower a complete 'pass' for getting the US into Vietnam in the first place!! St Jimmy falsely insists it was JFK that got the US into 'Nam' - NO! It was Ike, 'Tricky Dick' & the Dulles Boys!!
_________________
Nixak*77* goedelite • a day ago
JFK was NO saint [NOR even a MLK], but Chomsky's long-time denial of the nature & significance of his assassination is IMO very problematic.
There's more evidence that FDR likely knew in advance the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor [that in fact he baited Japan into it] yet let it happen [blocked intel from getting to Pearl Harbor's commanders], to get US public opinion on board for going to WAR! In fact Bush Jr's ex deputy Sec of War Paul Wolfowitz, in a June 2001 West Point speech, implicitly admitted the US [& UK?] had broken Japan's military code, via 'Op Magic', BEFORE Dec 7, 1941- yet that Intel was NOT shared w Pearl Harbor's commanders.
FYI: FDR's 'New Deal' was specifically designed to cut at-least 2/3s of Black workers out of it, to appease southern Dixiecrats!
________________
First let me say up-front that Billary / Killary Clinton, unlike Bernie Sanders, is NOT even worthy of consideration from progressives- NO Matter What! Is Bernie more 'progressive' than Billary? Certainly, but then so is almost everyone to the 'left' of hard-core FOX Noise Repugs!
RE: Sanders- The first issue is he's running as a [corp] DIM, NOT as a 'socialist' NOR even an independent- [DUHH]. As such Bernie's already committed himself to backing who ever the Dims nominate, which will almost certainly be Killary Clinton, NOT him! This also explains why Bernie to-date refuses to critique either Billary's or Obama's records, even re: issues he articulates 'passionately'.
2nd:} Based on Bernie's own web-site, he's FAILED thus far to articulate ANY positions re: foreign policy NOR the US' Military Industrial Surveillance Security State EMPIRE- which consumes over half or the US' budget = all the military spending of the ENTIRE rest of the World combined!
The fact is that Bernie's record re: US foreign policy & military empire is much less 'progressive' than either Dennis Kucinich's, Ralph Nader's or even Ron Paul's; while Bernie's domestic policy track record is NOR more progressive than either DK's &/or Nader's [maybe even less so].
3rd} So-called 'progressives' including alternative media [IE: TRNN, DN!, AlterNet, etc], is hyping Bernie so-much, almost NO-Ones even talking about more progressive / truly independent alternatives ala GP candidate Jill Stein or even Others [to the 'left' of her].
PS: Mr Street says & I agree, that Bernie would have had more 'progressive' impact had he run for VT Governor's seat as a 'progressive independent', a race he'd have had a good chance of winning, & then enacted in VT a 'real' single-payer 'Medicare for All' law along w a GMO food-labeling law- than running for POTUS as a Dim vs Billary, in a race which he'll almost certainly LOOSE!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment