General Discussion

HardTimes99

(2,049 posts)

26. I think it is intellectually dishonest to lay Vietnam at JFK's feet. Granted, he

Wed Sep 4, 2013, 05:14 PM

Sep 2013

dramatically escalated the number of advisors there during his presidency but there are a large number of sources that suggest that, if he did not support an out-right pullout after 1964, that he most definitely did not support inserting combat troops into the theater. The best I've been able to discern about JFK is that he simply had not decided what he would do following his all-but-certain re-election in 1964. Note this means he might well have decdied to escalate a la LBJ, but he might equally have sought some sort of implementation of the Geneva 1954 agreement and U.S. exit.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Now the Democratic Party is the war party. [View all] cali Sep 2013 OP

Let the Humanitarian Missiles Fly! leftstreet Sep 2013 #1

Silly, but a grain of truth: reformist2 Sep 2013 #37

He started one? When? Isoldeblue Sep 2013 #39

Yeah this isn't looking good for Democrats Harmony Blue Sep 2013 #2

I tend to agree with you mazzarro Sep 2013 #3

The Democratic leadership has always been as pro-war as the GOP davidn3600 Sep 2013 #4

Psst: ever hear of World War II, Korea, Vietnam? frazzled Sep 2013 #5

yeah. ever hear of LBJ? Know why he didn't run again? cali Sep 2013 #7

How about Clinton ProSense Sep 2013 #10

Right but the point is that the Democratic party Harmony Blue Sep 2013 #9

WW2 was the one where were were attacked and had war delcared upon us before we Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #12

Disingenuous response frazzled Sep 2013 #15

Um. Germany declared war on us! dawg Sep 2013 #32

I think it is intellectually dishonest to lay Vietnam at JFK's feet. Granted, he HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #26

OK, I'll go with Johnson frazzled Sep 2013 #30

I hardly think the Rs have become Skidmore Sep 2013 #6

didn't say they were. cali Sep 2013 #8

Obama isn't Bush...nt SidDithers Sep 2013 #11

No, he's not. so what? cali Sep 2013 #13

Bush started wars... SidDithers Sep 2013 #16

Obama ended Bush's wars Harmony Blue Sep 2013 #18

When and if he does, then we can talk. Isoldeblue Sep 2013 #38

Bush ended Iraq. TM99 Sep 2013 #19

That's accurate but inconvenient. nt Demo_Chris Sep 2013 #35

Rewriting history is a full-time, albeit minimum wage job. We're all Winston now. n/t Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #44

The 2007 status of forces agreement ended Iraq. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #25

What are you babbling about? Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #14

How often did the Dem party take control being antiwar? leftstreet Sep 2013 #17

The Democratic Party has never been an anti-war party. Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #20

Agree. They just pretended to be leftstreet Sep 2013 #22

let me spell it out for those too dim to grasp the obvious. cali Sep 2013 #27

"It will be a lot harder to do that next year, particularly now" Cali_Democrat Sep 2013 #29

this thread is really classic DU. KittyWampus Sep 2013 #33

Kick for those who are too dim to grasp the obvious. jessie04 Sep 2013 #43

Now? MFrohike Sep 2013 #21

Democratic war mongers do not deserve to hold or exercise power. Neither do Republicans, but that's HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #23

Green energy progressives Harmony Blue Sep 2013 #28

I just can't see this happening in 'Merica anytime soon, unfortunately... N/t grillo7 Sep 2013 #42

I seem to recall the President getting re-elected handily last time... brooklynite Sep 2013 #24

Insipid nonsense. jessie04 Sep 2013 #31

In the run up to Iraqi invasion RobertEarl Sep 2013 #34

Close enough... bobclark86 Sep 2013 #40

I stand corrected RobertEarl Sep 2013 #41

This will be forgotten by the time American Idol geek tragedy Sep 2013 #36

If you will recall, the Democratic Party has always been the war party. Egalitarian Thug Sep 2013 #45