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
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 . 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 . 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 . 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 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 .
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.
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. Some people might say something about the Patriot Act, but I think they are mostly just full of it.
At any price? Many don't buy this. Only those who are kept fat, happy, and most importantly, dumb. For now. 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 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. 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. If conditions change, my position will change. 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.
