Question: Why did the US engage in warfare in the 20th century?

I have to use the Korean, Vietnam, and Phillipinne wars.

Profit...

Phillipinnes: We owned it, and they rebelled.

The fool thing in the Balkans (World War 1): Lusitania, etc.

World War 2: Pearl Harbor, Phillipines, nazis, etc.

Korea: Truman Doctrine.

Vietnam: Truman Doctrine.

The other fool thing in the Balkans (serbia, montenegro, etc.): NATO alliance pact.

well, obviously. But I need something more..in depth i guess. just maybe.

that was to kazakhan. But i need something that connects all of them. Basically, i need a good thesis.

Question: Why did the US engage in warfare in the 20th century?

I have to use the Korean, Vietnam, and Phillipinne wars.

Early 20th century the US had become like its fellow European rivals a predatory imperial economic power in search of markets . The Philllipines was taken from Spain for a strategic foothold on Asia whence the US base of Subic Bay for the projection of US influence. With the advent of WWII the US saw the sweeping away of its traditional European rivals . Post WWII the US took up the mantle Britain and France as the world enforcer and protector of Capitalism .

Korea was fought to allow the US to retain a strategic military foothold on the Asian continent in case of any adverse Chinese moves .

Vietnam was simply a manufactured war to subsidize the US military/Industrial complex .

...and the Truman Doctrine, which stated that we had to prevent communism from spreading at all costs. Domino effect, as we saw Russia - China - Vietnam - Cambodia happen, as well as Russia - China - North korea.

http://www.lufa.ca/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=976

Many countries wanted to prevent Japan and Germany from selling their goods around the world so many countries stopped them from exporting to their countries. Both Germany and Japan weren't part of the way the world operated economicaly and wanted to do it their way which was to sell better products for cheaper rates. That's why the other countries didn't want to let their goods into their countries for it would drive prices down that those in charge were making.

So many countries were stopping Germany and Japan from doing commerce with them which left them pretty pissed off. America was blockading oil from getting to Japan to prevent them from producing stuff to sell. That pissed Japan off and they warned America there would be trouble if oil wasn't let through to them, hence Pearl Harbor.

Ironically we are now buying from both of these countries just as they wanted to do all along. If those in charge back then would have worked out a trade agreement with Germany and Japan we wouldn't habe had the war...IMO.

Vietnam was simply a manufactured war to subsidize the US military/Industrial complex .

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

Wars help new technology and systems to develop.

in the vietnam case america needed to test its "new world" military tactics and systems to help them develop a military and industrial platform to help them deal with problems in the future i.e the F4 (sucks but whatever)

basically If you need to improve your fighting force, the fastest way to do it is to go to war, because you have a real testing arena for the new toys, you get to see how they perform in a war-time situation and the new developments happen much faster because companies and factories are motivated and copetition between them is much higher.

War > growth of productivity > increase in work force > Competition > more growth > new developments to assist growth > Improvements in experemental and existing technologies happen faster.

War is over> Government is left with huge amounts of industry which can now be used for any purposes or incase of future threats. > easy lane

Wars help new technology and systems to develop.



The advancement of space travel and space exploration has brought about more changes that any war and has cost fewer lives while doing so.

im not supporting war, just explaining what brian ment.

im not supporting war, just explaining what brian ment.


Sounded as though you were seeing wars as ways to make new things which sounded like it was a positive thing not negitive.

So?
We wouldn't have Jet Travel, Rocket Teavel, Radar, guns, etc. if were not for war, and the nessesity for these technologies.
And space travel started out as a design of a high-altitude rocket bomber during WW2.
Werner von Braun comes to mind?

Why did the US get involved in wars in the 20th Century? OK, the United States in in an interesting geographical position. It has an enormous land mass, which is not easy to invade, and two of the largest and wildest oceans on the planet as moats to guard its front and back door. Essentially America wanted to gain control of those moats, which explains their actions in the Phillipines, and lend-lease arrangements the made with Britain in 1939-45. The Korean and Vietnam wars, from the strategic sense, were an attempt to keep the communists at bay a long way from America's shores, just as Nato was an attempt to keep Russia penned in during the Cold War. The expansion eastward of the EU is part of the same process.

Sounded as though you were seeing wars as ways to make new things which sounded like it was a positive thing not negitive.

No I dont think wars are possitive

What do you mean?
Vietnam was never a dominoe threat , it was a lucrative proving ground for surplus production from the US military industrial complex . Vietnam was a manufactured war , the reason was to subsidize the military industrial complex to the tune of billions . JFK was murdered in 1963 because he was pulling troops from Vietnam . Lyndon Johnson his successor executed the war by the now proven hoax of the The Gulf of Tonkin Incident (http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/htdtistonkin.html) . The rest is lucrative corporate history thousands of expensive helicopters , Combat Aircrat , APC's millions of rockets and missiles etc . The Cold War was also a huge gravy train for the complex it fell on hard times in 1989 with the collapse of Communism .

So?
We wouldn't have Jet Travel, Rocket Teavel, Radar, guns, etc. if were not for war, and the nessesity for these technologies.
And space travel started out as a design of a high-altitude rocket bomber during WW2.
Werner von Braun comes to mind?

This man was the first to build a true rocket and he did it when no wars were happening, how do you explain yourself now?Werner von Braun copied this mans ideas.Werner von Braun was a brilliant man with other peoples ideas .


"For nearly 20 years, Goddard's theories were just theories. When he'd build a rocket and carry it out to a field, it never flew anywhere at all. When he'd return to Clark, fizzled missile in hand, he'd be greeted by a colleague asking, as was his habit, "Well, Robert, how goes your moongoing rocket?" When he steeled himself to publish his work, the Times made him wish he hadn't.

Finally, all that changed. On March 16, 1926, Goddard finished building a spindly, 10-ft. rocket he dubbed Nell, loaded it into an open car and trundled it out to his aunt Effie's nearby farm. He set up the missile in a field, then summoned an assistant, who lit its fuse with a blowtorch attached to a long stick. For an instant the rocket did nothing at all, then suddenly it leaped from the ground and screamed into the sky at 60 m.p.h. Climbing to an altitude of 41 ft., it arced over, plummeted earthward and slammed into a frozen cabbage patch 184 ft. away. The entire flight lasted just 2 1/2 sec. — but that was 2 1/2 sec. longer than any liquid-fueled rocket had ever managed to fly before.

Goddard was thrilled with his triumph but resolved to say little about it. If people thought him daft when he was merely designing rockets, who knew what they'd say when the things actually started to fly? When word nonetheless leaked out about the launch and inquiries poured into Clark, Goddard answered each with a pinched, "Work is in progress; there is nothing to report." When he finished each new round of research, he'd file it under a deliberately misleading title — "Formulae for Silvering Mirrors," for example — lest it fall into the wrong hands.

But rockets are hard to hide, and as Goddard's Nells grew steadily bigger, the town of Worcester caught on. In 1929, an 11-ft. missile caused such a stir the police were called. Where there are police there is inevitably the press, and next day the local paper ran the horse-laughing headline: MOON ROCKET MISSES TARGET BY 238,799 1/2 MILES. For Goddard, the East Coast was clearly becoming a cramped place to be. In 1930, with the promise of a $100,000 grant from financier Harry Guggenheim, Goddard and his wife Esther headed west to Roswell, N.Mex., where the land was vast and the launch weather good, and where the locals, they were told, minded their business."

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

JFK SENT troops into Vietnam, you had better re-read your history books again or show us where you found this lie at. It is people like you that make this type of remark just to sway people into thinking that someone was who they weren't. Kennedy was the INSTIGATOR of the Vietnam War.

JFK increased the funding for the war. He did'nt help the Bay Of Pigs troops that were killed or imprisoned when they invaded Cuba and were told by JFK he would help them by sending in troops to back them up.

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

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

Baron Max

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

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

Baron Max

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's more than likely that JFK was assassinated by someone in the Mafia
The Mafia woould never be so brazen as to assassinate a president. Never has the Mafia been powerful enough to do such a thing. The amount of intel that goes into investigating a presidential assassination is mindboggling; if a criminal organization such as the Mafia was behind it, people would find out. And once the Feds found out, the backlash against the Mafia would be devestating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Why did the US engage in warfare in the 20th century?

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

geistkiesel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was only addressing his post, he made a comment that was a total lie and I wanted him to either show his proof or back down on his claims.
Sure here is the official goverment order of withdrawl from JFK on October 5, 1963 .

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1 -3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263 (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FRUSno194.html)
What dont speak dont lie , read the entire memorandum within it is the entire end to the Vietnam question .

Sure here is the official goverment order of withdrawl from JFK on October 5, 1963 .

What dont speak dont lie , read the entire memorandum within it is the entire end to the Vietnam question .

From your source:

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

From your source:

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

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


NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 273 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-lbj/nsam-273.htm)

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U. S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House state- ment of October 2, 1963.

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

And not withdraw troops there already.

And not withdraw troops there already.
The figure of 1,000 American troops mentioned within the memorandum for withdrawl pertains to those in Vietnam as stated within that document . Again I ask you to read the entire memorandum , as it clearly and unequivocable demonstrates without a shred of doubt that JFK was going to end any build up of US military involvement .

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

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

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

A policy of supporting South Vietnam with military advisors and equipment was not a decision JKF suddenly decided on right before he was assassinated. At the time he took office in '61 there were roughly 700 Air Force support and security personnel in theater, originally sent in under Ike. JFK sent in around 16,000-17,000 military advisors (to train the ARVN) over the next 2 1/2 years. The 1,000 military personnel he had decided to withdraw, which had been McNamara's proposal, were advisors, not combat personnel. There had been no military build-up in Vietnam under JFK to begin with, just an increase in advisors and funding, so it can't be said he was suddenly scaling back a military buildup.
Military advisers or Combat personnel doesnt matter it is picking gnat shit out of pepper . The fact was that JFK was scaling down from what was a build up . And as I said read the memorandum in full and you will see that JFK was going to end US involvement in Vietnam . That was the question put forward to me to answer with proof to which I did .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military advisers or Combat personnel doesnt matter it is picking gnat shit out of pepper . .


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

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

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

I have shown you , as requseted by you , 2 official goverment memoradums from the JFK administration outlining the withdrawl of 1,000 US military personell .

(3) On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
These 1,000 U.S. military personnel were withdrawn in Dec 1963 before LBJ rescinded (http://www.k12.nf.ca/gc/SocialStudies/whist3201/World%20History/MMartin/turbulentterm.htm) the order .

In December the first thousand men began to withdraw from the field of Vietnam. Johnson's new orders did not reach the field to reverse the withdrawal. But by March the Johnson administration drew a new list of bombing targets. Johnson increased the war effort with a total of 23,000 military advisors in Vietnam. By December the United States was committed to a war, which would last another 10 years, cost the United States $150 billion, lose 58,000 Americans, and bomb three times the amount used in World War II.

I've also read the various arguments from each side, from Arthur Schlesinger, Noam Chomskey, Tom Wicker, and Stanley Karnow, who all disagree that JFK was going to withdraw from SV,
Noam Chomsky's "Rethinking Camelot" where he could not arrive at a firm conclusion other than second hand accounts . Here read C H A P T E R T W O (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/rc/rc-c02-s01.html) see how that intellectual fraud offers nothing but interpretations and offers the standard "whether or not JFK was going to withdraw" conclusion .

Even if you're correct and JFK had committed himself to removing all of the advisors by Dec. '65, you haven't shown any proof that he was assassinated for that reason, nor have you offered up who might have wanted him dead for that decision. You did say that after JFK was assassinated, LBJ committed the US to war following the Gulf of Tonkin 'hoax'. Are you asserting that LBJ had JFK assassinated for wanting to de-commit?
I say now based on what I have read about the Eisenhower years and the Kennedy administration both men wanted to pull the plug on the Cold War in full . Both men eventually saw through the charade for Eisenhower it came to late . JFK was going to act and he was assasinated thats my conclusion.

I say now based on what I have read about the Eisenhower years and the Kennedy administration both men wanted to pull the plug on the Cold War in full . Both men eventually saw through the charade for Eisenhower it came to late . JFK was going to act and he was assasinated thats my conclusion.

But assassinated by who? Prior to 1963, LBJ had shown no tendencies to be virilently anti-communist to the point of having a president assassinated who might have pulled out military advisors over a 2 year period. It's not like JFK was considering de-committing combat troops in the middle of a US-led war. LBJ certainly hadn't staked his political career by '63 on saving Vietnam from communism. That wouldn't come until he was president, but was for obvious political reasons, not because of his own idealogy. If you're going to consider government or military association with the assassination, it would make more sense to consider that it was over JFK's handling of Castro and Cuba, from the fallout over the Bay of Pigs fiasco to JFK's refusal to sign off on Operation Northwoods. The anti-communists in the US were much more intense in the early '60s over Cuba than Vietnam.

As far as Eisenhower, I agree with you. Ike had warned of the potential power of the growing military/industrial complex, and had reduced the defense budget (and I would point out was not assassinated for doing so). He had been reluctant to provide air support for the French at DienBienPhu, but nevertheless had supported Diem's decision in '56 to refuse the Geneva-mandated general elections and provided Diem technical support and equipment. But he was reluctant to do more. But I think more pressure was on JKF, and later LBJ, as Republicans in the 1960, and later 1964, elections, had charged FDR for giving away eastern Europe and Truman for giving away China. Unfair to be sure, but neither JFK or LBJ could afford to ignore the charges.

I also agree with you that Chomsky is an 'intellectual fraud', and Chomsky's problem was that much of what he examined were edited transcripts. But I simply said I had read his opinion. However, Karnow, Schlesinger and Wicker cannot be dismissed so easily. All 3 covered Vietnam and wrote extensively on it.

The bottom line is that, while it is certainly possible, it can't be said with certainty that JFK had committed to removing all US advisors by December '65. But, even assuming he had made such a commitment, you haven't stated who would have wanted it and why they would have had it carried out. There were individuals elsewhere who had much bigger reasons for wanting to see the Kennedy's gone. Of course, Diem might have been willing to arrange to stop JFK from getting out of SV, but 1) from the Oct. 5 memo, Diem was not to be informed of the decision,and 2) Diem was assassinated 3 weeks before JFK

But assassinated by who?
In plutocratic societies the wealthy financial/industrial elite run our society they are a parallell government . The goverments we vote in are really servants to this

parallell government Presidents and administrations serve it's needs . Foreign policy is conducted according to and around business interests ares such as the mideast

figure prominent . How it works is at the top is the Financial/Industrial corporations these powerful entities control the nations wealth . There means of rule are the

CIA wich operates internationally and the FBI which is really a domestic intelligence enforcer . The decision to murder JFK I believe arose within the CIA/FBI who

were simply acting in the interest of protect the Financial/Industria elite afterall that is their job .

Prior to 1963, LBJ had shown no tendencies to be virilently anti-communist to the point of having a president assassinated who might have

pulled out military advisors over a 2 year period. It's not like JFK was considering de-committing combat troops in the middle of a US-led war. LBJ certainly hadn't

staked his political career by '63 on saving Vietnam from communism. That wouldn't come until he was president, but was for obvious political reasons, not because

of his own idealogy. If you're going to consider government or military association with the assassination, it would make more sense to consider that it was over

JFK's handling of Castro and Cuba, from the fallout over the Bay of Pigs fiasco to JFK's refusal to sign off on Operation Northwoods. The anti-communists in the

US were much more intense in the early '60s over Cuba than Vietnam.
Precisely LBJ was like Kennedy a Liberal , but on that day in Dallas LBJ was in the limosine behind JFK , Nixon , Bush and Gerald Ford were likewise in Dallas that day also . It seems to me having all these prominent political men in Dallas that day was to send each of them a message about what happens when you act up . LBJ being the successor was given the most graphic veiw , which explains why he sat out one term and got out .

As far as Eisenhower, I agree with you. Ike had warned of the potential power of the growing military/industrial complex, and had reduced the

defense budget (and I would point out was not assassinated for doing so). He had been reluctant to provide air support for the French at DienBienPhu, but

nevertheless had supported Diem's decision in '56 to refuse the Geneva-mandated general elections and provided Diem technical support and equipment. But he was

reluctant to do more. But I think more pressure was on JKF, and later LBJ, as Republicans in the 1960, and later 1964, elections, had charged FDR for giving away

eastern Europe and Truman for giving away China. Unfair to be sure, but neither JFK or LBJ could afford to ignore the charges.
A good insight to Eisenhower is Khrushevs book 'The last testament' in which he recounts his meeting with Eisenhower . Very enlightening is the discussion on the arms race and the expence and ending it all voluteered from Eisenhower . In Eisenhowers book he states very clearly that he believed the Paris peace summit was deliberately derailed by the U2 incident .

I also agree with you that Chomsky is an 'intellectual fraud', and Chomsky's problem was that much of what he examined were edited transcripts.

But I simply said I had read his opinion. However, Karnow, Schlesinger and Wicker cannot be dismissed so easily. All 3 covered Vietnam and wrote extensively on

it.
Read the Pentagon Papers within those documents can clearly be read the deliberate instigation of the Vietnamese conflict . This conflict was manufactured for the financial benefit of US Arms manufacturers . Like todays current US conflict it is being fought to protect and bolster US control of the lucrative distribution of mideast oil .

The bottom line is that, while it is certainly possible, it can't be said with certainty that JFK had committed to removing all US advisors by

December '65. But, even assuming he had made such a commitment, you haven't stated who would have wanted it and why they would have had it carried out.

There were individuals elsewhere who had much bigger reasons for wanting to see the Kennedy's gone. Of course, Diem might have been willing to arrange to stop

JFK from getting out of SV, but 1) from the Oct. 5 memo, Diem was not to be informed of the decision,and 2) Diem was assassinated 3 weeks before JFK


The Diem Brothers were seeking for a US withdrawl from Vietnam this is what led to their assasinations . JFK was going for a gradual withdrawl over a period of time . I believe the Cuba missile crisis incident had a very sobering effect on JFK reading his speech's after the incident I believe he came to the realsiation that this cold war was a dangerous fraud and decided to end it .

http://www.lufa.ca/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=2

What about, America believes they're the Police State of the world?

I see no problem with America being a global policeman.
And Hanoi5: A police state referrs to something like north korea, something entirely different from what I think you mean.

I see no problem with America being a global policeman.You wouldn't. You're still brain-washed to believe that "America" is good.


And Hanoi5: A police state referrs to something like north korea, something entirely different from what I think you mean.Oh really?

No. I just believe America is 'mine'. It serves my intrests to have it become as powerful and influential as possible. As for good, we are pretty damn nice when compared to... just about everything else. Especially on our own soil.

Good enough for me.


A police state is a state in which the government maintains strict control over the population, particularly through suspension of civil rights, usually by means of a force of secret police. Given that its objective is often to repress internal opposition among its citizens, "police state" is often considered another name for dictatorship.
Some people might say something about the Patriot Act, but I think they are mostly just full of it.

No. I just believe America is 'mine'. It serves my intrests to have it become as powerful and influential as possible. At any price?



As for good, we are pretty damn nice when compared to... just about everything else. Especially on our own soil.Many don't buy this. Only those who are kept fat, happy, and most importantly, dumb.


Good enough for me.For now.



Some people might say something about the Patriot Act, but I think they are mostly just full of it.Why? You just hold to the party line, so you should have no worries. What about those of us, us Americans, who don't hold to either the Republican or Democratic party lines?

At any price?
At quite a significant price but, no, not any. The acceptable price could be measured in human casualties per year though as well as economic effects.


Many don't buy this. Only those who are kept fat, happy, and most importantly, dumb.
It is a massive mistake to think that the only way someone could disagree with you is that they are either evil or stupid. People do things for very sane and well thought out reasons that you simply may not agree with.


For now.
If conditions change, my position will change.


Why? You just hold to the party line, so you should have no worries. What about those of us, us Americans, who don't hold to either the Republican or Democratic party lines?
Technically, that isn't the party line. And you should note that I disagree with the Republican party on many subjects, namely religion's place in things, but I support them for the subjects we agree with, such as foreign policy and national security.

The rest of america, those unable to work within either of the two major parties... you had better get your heads together and work under a common front. Until then, you are no threat at all and will have hardly any influence above a local scale.