Reply With Quote
Good. We can agree then that we need to stay there rather than pulling out?
Yes, did I say I agreed with it?The regime he helped overthrow was the pro-US regime!
Eisenhower had the ball before Kennedy was president. The Geneva Convention divided Viet Nam in 1954. This division was suppose to be temporary as a vote was to take place in 1956. The USA did not sign the agreement. The President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, declined to hold elections, in violation of the agreement as well. He was placed by the USA, some may say a puppet, does it really matter? He turned out not to be anyway. Once he allowed elections to be held for South Viet Nam, they were rigged and he won with something like 98%. His people didn't really like him He was a considered and elitist, and too friendly with the French who occupied them.
There is consensus among historians that the major conflicts starting in the late 50's was Diem's policies rather than Minh's. He would not negotiate with the north at all. Kennedy authorized the coup on the assumption the two sides could reconcile their differences with someone else in charge.
In all fairness to Kennedy, Eisenhower called things wrong too. He feared the proposed 1956 election would have the communists winning. The policies they put in place in the north later revised such opinions as corruption and communism started the collapse of their economy. In hindsight, had the North and South had a joint election, democracy would likely have won out over dictatorship.
Good. We can agree then that we need to stay there rather than pulling out?
Of course it does.He was placed by the USA, some may say a puppet, does it really matter?
And thanks for Cliff Noting the wikipedia article about Diem, but I already knew all of this.
Par ion Iraq.
did you say "likely"? another "wild" exaggeration. so the chinese and soviets would have just stepped aside? jeez....
If we can set up a situation where there can be true self-determination, fine. We have yet to do that.
That cannot be true. Kennedy was a senator since 1957, and a representative since 1947. He had to know what was happening in Viet Nam, or at least some items we were involved in over there. If he didn't, he was completely derelict as a senator, and should have never been elected to any government office.
I even doubt that he made such a lie. Can you source that?
he didn't know about the advisers. no one knew outside of the circle.
Agreed. Public timelines will not help. All I keep saying is that as long as progress is being made, we should not consider leaving until things stabilize, and Iraq can govern without our help.
Timelines are important, but should be kept secret between the governments. Making them public gives the terrorists and insurgencies the best timelines to plan attacks.
how do you keep a secret with a govt. that is seen as a failure by our govt.?
There has been no political progress.
Feh, neocons use to say "no timelines ever!" and "no benchmarks!" You'll change your mind in the spring when troop levels start drawing down.Timelines are important, but should be kept secret between the governments. Making them public gives the terrorists and insurgencies the best timelines to plan attacks.
That wasn't my point. I never implied he was in the circle. In fact, with all the talk about Iraq, who ever is the next president will learn things on day one that they never knew before.
You pointed out the contention:
He at a minimum had to know "that word." He also had to know about the 1954 agreement as well, unless you would like to claim he was an uninformed democrat?kennedy said that was the first time he'd ever heard that word.
Did you mean to imply something other than Kennedy was ignorant to Viet Nam? That's what your posting implied to me anyway.
it's what he said. feel free to define his intellectual capacity. he was dropped into something he didn't know about, and had to make choices from the outset.
That's right. Be a 'glass half empty' type. Is it either a 100% progress or pull out type thing with you?
There have always been internal benchmarks, and probably timelines too. They just shouldn't be made public.
I may or may not change my mind. Only the future will determine that. Planning to be defeated is not in my character.
Well, I can assure you that you either did not supply the right context, or you misquoted what he said. There is no way president Kennedy didn't know some basics about Viet Nam.
tell me about those. how many have got benched?
There has been no political progress. I notice you didn't dispute that.
If the surge is working so well, why not?There have always been internal benchmarks, and probably timelines too. They just shouldn't be made public.
Whatever this administration says, you'll say you thought all along.I may or may not change my mind. Only the future will determine that. Planning to be defeated is not in my character.
What does your "character" have to do with this? And you are personally risking defeat? Have you re-enlisted?
All talk.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 08-27-2007 at 06:41 PM.
The result of this oh-so-glorious surge isn't a "glass half full/empty" proposition; It's and empty glass with a lot of condensation on the outside.
"To pour men, material and money into the jungles of Indochina without at least a remote prospect of victory would be dangerously futile...no amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy which is everywhere, an enemy of the people, which had the sympathy and the covert support of the people."
--JFK to the US Senate, 1954
"This is the worst one we've got, isn't it? You know, Eisenhower never mentioned it. He talked at length about Laos, but never uttered the word Vietnam."
--JFK to his national security adviser, Walt Rostow, 1961
you know chump, it's pointless trying to prove anything to neocon hacks.
What are you trying to prove?
I am only saying that president Kennedy knew "that word" Viet Nam! I don't know how much he knew about it. He had to know some basics since it was one of three countries in Indochina. The French occupation was well known. The Geneva Convention of 1954 was something he had to know at least a few details of. That is why I say he was derelict if he didn't know! I contend he did know some basics, because I don't believe president Kennedy was that ignorant.
Why are you guys trying to twist my point?
Why must I repeat these things? What words will be understood?
I was clarifying that he knew quite a bit about Vietnam in general, but didn't know what a problem it was for the US in particular as evidenced by Eisenhower's failure to mention it during the transition.
Kennedy was doomed to escalate in Vietnam after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Then he made the US own Vietnam by allowing the overthrow and murder of Diem.
We already own Iraq, and more people are going to die regardless. The question is now this: Is there any political solution that could be seriously sustainable in the long term that would actually allow us to leave? It looks more and more that a unified democratic Iraq is an oxymoron.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 08-27-2007 at 07:07 PM.
you're the one that brought it up, what was on kennedys mind. i thought you might like to know what was on kennedy's mind about VN
I see Clambake the political forum troll is on the loose again.
thank you
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
