Starve.Org White Noise Usenet Archive: "Re: JFK

On Apr 28, 8:37 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:

> On Apr 28, 8:30 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

> > On Apr 28, 8:18 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:

> > > On Apr 27, 6:07 pm, billcla...@live.com wrote:

> > > > 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

> ...

Jesussssssssss....you again are showing your stupidity and lack of
formal education one more time. Why do you enjoy this humiliation?