Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963 [View all]Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)3. JFK was never a cold war warrior. Wow.
The guy who went ahead with the Bay of Pigs invasion, planned by Eisenhower's CIA...
The guy who stood outside the Berlin Wall and declared himself a citizen of Berlin...
The guy who stood up to the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis and forced them to take the missiles out of Cuba...
Not a Cold War warrior. OK, then.
"There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass'sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin."
ETA: One more JFK quote - from his prepared remarks for November 22, 1963 at the Dallas Trade Mart:
But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism. Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3-5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers. A successful Communist breakthrough in these areas, necessitating direct United States intervention, would cost us several times as much as our entire foreign aid program, and might cost us heavily in American lives as well.
About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near the borders of the Communist bloc--nine countries confronted directly or indirectly with the threat of Communist aggression--Viet-Nam, Free China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece, Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources to maintain the forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.
About 70 percent of our military assistance goes to nine key countries located on or near the borders of the Communist bloc--nine countries confronted directly or indirectly with the threat of Communist aggression--Viet-Nam, Free China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Greece, Turkey, and Iran. No one of these countries possesses on its own the resources to maintain the forces which our own Chiefs of Staff think needed in the common interest. Reducing our efforts to train, equip, and assist their armies can only encourage Communist penetration and require in time the increased overseas deployment of American combat forces. And reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.
Emphasis mine. The reports of JFK pulling out of Vietnam are greatly exaggerated. It was a thorny problem, but let's not pretend it was a fait accompli in either direction.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
289 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963 [View all]
Octafish
Nov 2013
OP
DiEugenio is one of the most interesting guys out there still working this subject,
stranger81
Nov 2013
#1
He brought up Edmund GULLION, US diplomat whom JFK counseled in Vietnam in 1951...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#2
Thanks for the corrective to the magical, naive thinking being espoused in the OP.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#7
Kennedy increased the number of Americans in Vietnam from under a thousand to 16,000.
Spider Jerusalem
Nov 2013
#276
And you know this, how?? Were you a friend of JFK, there during his administration?
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#48
I'm going to say this again: I'm interested in discussing JFK's assassination.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#45
Sad that so many DUers act as apologists for Oswald, the bastard that killed JFK.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#212
You acccused me of sympathizing with the killer of JFK. Either retract that or prove it. I have
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#235
If you're saying that Oswald was the killer of JFK, then sure, I'll retract it and apologize.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#236
You made an egregious accusation. There are no 'conditions' under which an apology
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#237
It's an interesting take on the Cuban Missile Crisis that JFK's real opponents were Americans.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#44
Audio tape: LBJ urged taking "every step that we can" to support overthrow of Joao Goulart
Octafish
Nov 2013
#158
You must have missed the OP about the change in foreign policy between administrations.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#179
"The record" shows that there wasn't much change between DDE's foreign policy and JFK's FP.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#180
"little evidence that JFK would have pulled American troops out of Vietnam"
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#165
Our man Diem: How America Came To Back South Vietnam's Despised And Doomed President (by Seth Jacobs
bobthedrummer
Nov 2013
#144
Bolo Points Out That Forrestal Is Not Bundy Which Jim Appears To Be Confused About
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#254
But, wait! You didn't tell us the name of the university you mentor doctoral candidates for!
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#270
It bothers me that DiEugenio never managed to mention the university he works for.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#277
DiEugenio said Kennedy was attacked bitterly in Washington for siding with democracy in Congo...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#18
The French had been kicked out of Vietnam for nine years when Diem was killed
alcibiades_mystery
Nov 2013
#108
"What does that have to do with the French colonialists?" Nothing, of course
YoungDemCA
Nov 2013
#110
I'm sorry. I assumed readers had a basic understanding of the history of Vietnam.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#164
Only ridiculous if you value supporting Diem, whose power came from corrupt colonialist money.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#170
Diem was a brutal tyrant supported by the US, including Kennedy, until he became inconvenient
alcibiades_mystery
Nov 2013
#172
Translation: here's a bunch of evidence-bereft CT books I've read before writing my own
stopbush
Nov 2013
#25
In the past, I've spent (wasted?) plenty of time showing you where you are wrong.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#92
Your problem is that you give way too much credence to little tidbits of opinion
stopbush
Nov 2013
#142
Have you even read Bugliosi? Be honest, because I don't see how you would make such a statement
stopbush
Nov 2013
#143
No, I haven't read his book. The great DUer H20 Man did and wrote interesting things about it.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#146
DiEugenio blasted Bill O'Reilly and his Nixon-stained GOP boss, Roger Ailes...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#22
David Talbot called Dulles, ''the Chairman of the Board of the Assassination.''
Octafish
Nov 2013
#191
That is a great question. What is this poster implying? The Conserva-Dems have been
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#49
DiEugenio has written about the Right killing off the JFK Legacy (New Frontier), too...
Octafish
Nov 2013
#34
Re E. Howard Hunt's forged diplomatic cables tying Kennedy to the Diem assassination:
Mc Mike
Nov 2013
#73
That doesn't change the indisputable fact that Kennedy let the coup happen.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#88
Actually, yes. What JFK wanted was different than what Pentagon, State and CIA delivered.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#135
"dozens of right wing gun nuts turned out to a restaurant in Dallas" - wasn't that incredible?
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#209
I'd say we agree on a lot of good Democratic issues, if not the one brought up by the o.p.
Mc Mike
Nov 2013
#239
"seriously deficient historically" - feel free to back that up any time now.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#60
Chomsky: "Changes of Administration, including the Kennedy assassination, had no large-scale effect
ucrdem
Nov 2013
#61
Wow, a nation on a criminal path since November 22, 1963, and since the Gulf of Tonkin, a series of
indepat
Nov 2013
#33
You are right. I deleted my post. I just find that the obsession to lock or hide posts to
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#75
Oh I see it. It's the conservatives that want to believe that Oswald acted alone.
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#106
IMO those that are open-minded and willing to listen to different views are usually liberals.
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#136
There is nothing liberal or conservative about thinking Oswald acted alone.
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#113
Not what I said at all. I said conservatives want to believe that Oswald acted alone.
rhett o rick
Nov 2013
#139
Most Democrats I know are furious the perpetrators have not been brought to justice.
Octafish
Nov 2013
#156
The perpetrator (singular) in the JFK case was Oswald. Case closed. The evidence is overwhelming.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#176
I'm not claiming there were "not conspiracies in any of the assassinations." Just in JFK's case.
stopbush
Nov 2013
#175
Everyone should read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by Jim Douglass to clear up the Cold Warrior thing.
Zen Democrat
Nov 2013
#81
Warren Commission Member John J. McCloy certainly helped to change/shape policies pre/post 11-23-63.
bobthedrummer
Nov 2013
#86
Some of US will never forget that simple fact, will we, despite what the perception managers peddle.
bobthedrummer
Nov 2013
#188
Did Sabato say anything about his study that showed the Dictabelt evidence is useless?
Bolo Boffin
Nov 2013
#215
''Stop hijacking your own freaking OP to discuss me and get back to the topic.''
Octafish
Nov 2013
#226