Friday, May 16, 2008
Chinks in the Dogma's Armor
Here's another example of why this left versus right/liberal versus conservative paradigm tends to drive me crazy. Nixon, who was a Republican (and, yes, ostensibly a conservative one), actually had one of the most liberal administrations of the last 100 years. I mean, granted, the guy probably didn't agree with half of what he ultimately supported, doing so only to cow-tow favor from the electorate....but bottom-line, I'm saying. Contrast this with Bill Clinton, who probably had the most conservative record of any 20th Century Democratic President ever. Granted, HE had to deal with Newt Gingrich's Republican Congress for the final 6 years of his Presidency and, yes, because of this, one could clearly argue mitigating factors here. But, seriously, folks, I don't remember Clinton too often taking on the speaker back then. Kind of rubber-stamped the son-of-a-bitch is what I seem to remember....................................Bottom-line, me-buckos, politicians (especially when you view them in retrospect) don't always do what you think they're going to do. That, I'm saying, and the fact that the parties themselves have changed significantly over the years, damned if it all hasn't gotten just a little too tricky, these labels, all-encompassing dichotomies, etc.. Fun for the simpletons, though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
Yes, Bill was a disappointment, in so many ways. it was his success with the economy that makes his tenure seem so rosy. I sure don't want more of that. I'll take the hopeful unknown over either of the knowns--the two war mongers.
Just remember, though, back when we were kids, it was the Democratic party that was pro-segregation and it was the Republicans who tried to keep us out of wars. Obama, yeah, he might turn out to be a pretty good President. I'm just not too anxious to buy into any specific paradigm permanently.
Hey Will!,
If you wanna offend some real asshats check out this site:
http://revolution.muslimpad.com
I probably have a fatwa out on me as we speak...LOL
Oh, email is required for posting but you may wanna just make one up...LOL
I'm not sure if anything can top the "Existentialist Cowboy" but, sure, let's give it a check here. Thanks.
Interesting.
The jihadi's closed the comment section on the post I commented in.
The hawks of the time (including WF Buckley, that eloquent snake) called Nixon soft; at the same time, the leftists and freaks called him a rightist if not fascist (that was HS Thompson's schtick for years--). He was not that liberal (remember he started out working for Joe McCarthy), though he did raise taxes a few times. Yet he and his hatchet-man Kissinger were mostly playing clean-up in Nam: blame that great visionary "liberal" JFK and then texas-crat LBJ for getting the US involved in 'Nam (and for the bay of pigs).
In comparison with JFK or LBJ, Nixon does not seem that conservative, but then JFK does not seem that liberal, even compared to say Truman (and rumors there are that Harry T. did not care too much for those Boston-irish mafiosos). The freaks detested Nixon in the same way the beats hated Eisenhower: he symbolized authority, the status quo, traditional religion, squareskis.
Nixon was an interesting man, and I think quite intelligent (especially compared to the doltish Reagan), but his hands are bloody--though maybe not as bloody as say JFK or LBJ. I'd say Clinton about like LBJ (if not more conservative economically).
My reference to Nixon as a liberal centers around his domestic agenda. Not only did he accept the Great Society, he expanded it. Of course, he did it purely for political reasons. When one of his advisors suggested cutting back on Head Start, Nixon responded, "No, no, the people like it."
Will, I'm pissing everybody off again. I do much better when I take a little time off--them readers really like me--not so much when I'm speaking my mind. Either I'm a complete asshole or (when on hiatus) the best thing since sliced bread. I guess I need to take a longer vacation.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
My reference to Nixon as a liberal centers around his domestic agenda. Not only did he accept the Great Society, he expanded it. Of course, he did it purely for political reasons. When one of his advisors suggested cutting back on Head Start, Nixon responded, "No, no, the people like it."
You raise a very good point, while i dont see Nixon as being liberal he certainly did make concessions to win enough favor to implement his agenda as did Clinton and LBJ.
That said I think Nixon started alot of the spying and imperial power grabbing of the presidency and the Executive Branch we see today under Bush and Cheney, Nixon thought he was untouchable just like Bush and Cheney do and he viewed the Constitution as an "inconvienience and obstacle" to his omnipotence.
There have also been comparisons between Hillary and LBJ, i do think both craved the presidency and were/are obsessed with implementing their agenda's with Hillary i'm not sure what that agenda is because she lies, flip flops and has no sincerity and will say and do ANYTHING to get elected but if i had to speculate I wouold say it is either to rob the till like Bush and Cheney or to TRY to implement an ambitious social agenda like LBJ or some combination.
I have to agree with Volt on this one I think Hillary has a huge ego like LBJ or GWB, but i dont think she has the charisma and legislative and diplomatic skills to pull it off and get the required compromises and support from Congress like LBJ, Reagan, Clinton etc... all got.
That said if it DID ever come down to Hillary vs MCSame I would be pulling for Hillary, I think she is much better than McSame economically and We simply CANT let McSame put another radical Reich Wing jackass on the Supreme Court or our country will turn into a fascist Police State.
Its funny that repugs ONCE stood for small government, personal freedoms and privacy, and fiscal responsibility............after almost 8 years of GWB it seems they stand for the exact opposite in a very Orwellian way.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Just remember, though, back when we were kids, it was the Democratic party that was pro-segregation and it was the Republicans who tried to keep us out of wars.
I'm gonna call you out on this one Will
1) How LONG ago were you a kid, because I honestly NEVER remember the Democratic party being p;ro segregation, or the repugs TRYING to keep us out of wars.
2) I'm gonna ask you to provide some factual evidence to back this statement up.
Jimmy Carter was the last President to mandate higher fuel economy in cars, conservation and he did much to develop natural gas, wind, solar, coal, nuclear etc......that diversified us somewhat from oil and reduced demand enough to bring down energy prices and inflation and that more than ANYTHING helped usher in the 20 year economic boom that Reagan and Clinton took credit for..............Carter took the blame for LBJ's and Nixon's reckless spending and poor economic policies.
Bottom line I think Obama would reach across the isle to get some good things done...........I think Hillary will polarize Congress, that includes both her own party and the repugs, and there will be gridlock kinda like now and not much will get done, certainly nothing big other than possibly ending the war.........but even that i'm not sure about because she sounds like a war monger her self more than half of the time.McSame on the other hand will be a continuation of some of Bush's worst policies.
Mike, back in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, virtually every southern Democrat was a segregationist; George Wallace, Lester Maddox, even Strom Thurmond was a Dem back in those early days. Granted, they eventually switched to the Republican party but back in "the day" the Democrats had a sordid history at best with blacks in America. The Civil Rights legislation of the 60s was largely a coaltion between Republicans and northern Democrats..........As for the Republicans trying to keep us out of war, look specifically to Eisenhower. Despite being under great pressure at home and abroad to help the French in Indochina, he wisely kept us out of that region. Robert Taft, a central figure in the Senate during the 50s was as isolationist as they come. And even Reagan, who, granted, massively built up the military, was very reticent to actually use it. Bush Sr. not marching on to Baghdad back in 91 is another example of restraint.
Will said "The Civil Rights legislation of the 60s was largely a coaltion between Republicans and northern Democrats.........."
Wasnt that LBJ who worked with the repugs to pass Civil Rights Legislation along with escalating the war and his Great Society?
LBJ might have worked across the isle and done some decent things, and his intentions may sound noble and flowery...........but he was tied in with all the oil cronnies and military industrial complex..........he escalated the war for ar a reason and his guns and butter policies destroyed the Middle Class by ruining the economy with high inflation............
I also despise Hoover and the Dulles Brothers. I think they may have played a role in JFK's assassination and the Dulles brothers craved war, they helped destabilize both Vietnam and Iran.............Vietnam was a disaster just l;ike Iraq is today, and Iran is STILL a problem.
Hoover was the one who started spying on Americans to blackmail powerful politicians and the wealthy............And I believe Bush and Cheney have been following their gameplan with some demagogery and fear mongering from Joe McCarthy and Hitler thrown in as well to scare the public and smear people who speak out.........and for the most part congress has proven too spineless to stand up to these partisan smears and demagogery.
Your quote;
"Despite being under great pressure at home and abroad to help the French in Indochina, he wisely kept us out of that region."
Is not quite as true as you believe,
Interestingly the US Communist Party was outlawed in 1954, the very same year Wallace Buford and James McGovern Jr. became the first American casualties in Vietnam. Their C-119 transport aircraft was shot down by Viet Minh artillery while on mission to drop supplies to the garrison of Dien Bien Phu.
Dwight David Eisenhower's years in office Jan 1953 until Jan 1961, which means that supply mission to the French forces at Dien Bien Phu HAD to have been approved by him.
By the way under his administration the mandated democratic elections of 1956 were blocked.
The Geneva Accords promised elections in 1956 to determine a national government for a united Vietnam. However, the United States and the State of Vietnam refused to sign the document. From his home in France Emperor Bảo Đại appointed Ngô Ðình Diệm as Prime Minister of South Vietnam. With American support, in 1955 Diệm used a referendum to remove the former Emperor and declare himself the president of the Republic of Vietnam.
Also the following military support for France took place during the Eisenhower administration,
*During September 1953, the USS Belleau Wood -renamed Bois Belleau- was lent to France and sent to French Indochina to replace the Arromanches. She was used to support delta defenders in the Halong bay in May 1954.
*The same month the United States delivered additional aircraft using the USS Windham Bay carrier. She would return to Saigon in 1955. On April 18, 1954, during the siege of Dien Bien Phu, the USS Saipan delivered 25 Korean War AU-1 Corsair aircraft to be used by the French Aeronavale to support the bessieged garrison.
*US Air Force assistance (1952-1954)
A 1952 F4U-7 Corsair of the 14.F flotilla who fought at Dien Bien Phu.
A total of 94 F4U-7s were built for the Aeronavale in 1952, with the last of the batch, the final Corsair built, rolled out in December 1952. The F4U-7s were actually purchased by the U.S. Navy and passed on to the Aeronavale through the U.S. Military Assistance Program (MAP). They were supplemented by 25 ex-U.S.MC AU-1s (previously used in the Korean War) and moved from Yokosuka, Japan to Tourane Air Base (Da Nang), Vietnam in April 1954. US Air Force assistance followed in November 1953 when the French commander in Indochina, General Navarre, asked General McCarty, commander of the Combat Cargo Division, for 12 Fairchild C-119 for Operation Castor at Dien Bien Phu.
On March 3, 1954, twelve C-119s of the 483rd Troop Carrier Wing ("Packet Rats") based at Ashiya, Japan, were painted with France's insignia and loaned to France with 24 CIA pilots for short term use. Maintenance was carried out by the US Air Force and airlift operations were commanded by McCarty.
*Central Intelligence Agency covert operations (1954)
France-marked USAF C-119 flown by CIA pilots over Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
Two CIA pilots (CAT) were killed in action during the siege of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Twenty four CIA pilots supplied the French Union garrison by airlifting paratroopers, ammunition, artillery pieces, tons of barbed wire, medics and other military material. With the reducing DZ areas, night operations and anti-aircraft artillery assaults, many of the "packets" fell into Viet Minh hands.
The 37 CIA pilots completed 682 airdrops under anti-aircraft fire between March 13 and May 6th. The ceasefire began the following day at 5:00 PM under Hanoi-based General Cogny's orders. On February 25, 2005, the French ambassador to the United States, Jean-David Levitte, awarded the seven remaining CIA pilots with the Légion d'honneur.
For more references about the US Military's involvement in Indochina and Vietnam try the Pentagon Papers, as they contain numerous references by the US military itself about what they did there.
Try a little research before making blanket statements which are so easily disproved.
After the period of advising the French, which ended soon after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, our direct aid of the new Republic of Vietnam (the southern Vietnamese government under President Diem) came under the direction of three commanders in the Military Assistance and Advisory Group, Vietnam. They were Lt. General Samuel T. Williams, Lieutenant General Lionel C. McGarr, and Major General Charles J. Timmes. These men served, in succession, from May 1954 to February 1962.
You do not create a military command at this level unless your involved with quite a large military undertaking. There are not enough Lt Generals in the US Army to give one to every country on the planet.
P.S. Just so you know, only John Kennedy had a plan to get the US out of Vietnam …. before Nixon's Vietamization policy(cut and run strategy), in 1972 when victory was seen as no longer possible.
Absolutely, Mike, that was LBJ's most important legacy.
The French literally begged for U.S. forces to rescue them at Diem Biem Phu. Ike refrained (a restraint I doubt that Truman could have mustered). And, while, yes, there was American involvement post Geneva (no, not all of it clean, either) in South Vietnam, Eisenhower still refrained from escalating this involvement, militarily. It was only when LBJ (a Democrat) took office did restraint fly out the window. Not only that, but the son-of-a-bitch lied his pants off, as well, in his efforts to accomplish this escalation. Let's give Ike a littel due, huh? Especially since it was Truman who started assisting the French during HIS administration.
My point was that Ike kept TROOPS out of the conflict. Hardware WAS supplied but that particular policy was merely a continuation of Truman's. Kennedy following in suit.
"My point was that Ike kept TROOPS out of the conflict."
July 8, 1959 - Two U.S. military advisors, Maj. Dale Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, are killed by Viet Minh guerrillas at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. They are the first American deaths in the Second Indochina War which Americans will come to know simply as The Vietnam War.
Doesn't seem he succeeded, unless those two deaths don't count.
By the way the advice of the first military casuality in Vietnam should have been heeded by all presidents, Eisenhower included, who split Vietnam and created the illegitimate (in the majority of Vietnamese eyes southern dictatorship, by blocking the 1956 reunification elections);
September 26, 1945 - The first American death in Vietnam occurs, during the unrest in Saigon, as OSS officer Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey is killed by Viet Minh guerrillas who mistook him for a French officer. Before his death, Dewey had filed a report on the deepening crisis in Vietnam, stating his opinion that the U.S. "ought to clear out of Southeast Asia."
Of course, those 2 deaths count. But compare that to the 58,000 deaths that LBJ and Nixon divied up in the 60s and 70s. Compared to those 2 liars, Eisenhower starts looking good in retrospect. As for Eisenhower's interjection into the reunification elections, yes, perhaps that was a mistake. But you have to realize that stopping the sread of Communism was the virtually unquestioned paradigm of the West. Any American politician, if he were President, undoubtedly would have done the same. I mean, come on, do you really think Truman would have let the south fall to the Communists. And what about Kennedy? He had 3 years to call for elections. Didn't do it. Eisenhower knew the horrors of war and it showed. And his speech on the Military Industrial Complex is one of the greatest ever by an American President, I think. Too bad its wisdom never rubbed off on LBJ, Nixon, and Bush #2.
"And what about Kennedy? He had 3 years to call for elections."
Your lack of knowledge of the internal working of Vietnam is showing,
By Jan 1961 the "war" between the Viet Cong and Diem's government had already begun and was rapidly expanding, hence Kennedy's attempt at putting in special forces as trainers and advisers for the fledgling South Vietnamese Army, and neither side was willing to even broach the idea of elections because of the heavy handed way Diem forced his way into the culture demanding a special place for his catholicism instead of recognizing the vast majority of Buddhists there.
I think elections could have been held as late as the summer of 1958, however no matter when they were held Ho Chi Minh would have wiped the floor with Diem. having fought off both the Japanese invasion, and the attempt of the French to reassert their colonial dominance there, only Ho had the national standing to win that election, the Vietnamese people saw him as their George Washington.
Ho was always more popular in the South them Diem, Ky or Thieu ever were, which was why none of the Southern leaders could control the country-side.
Which means the American position in Vietnam is almost exactly the same as it is in Palestine, Iraq and many other places (Chile circa 1973 for example, or Iran circa 1953), they only accept democracy if the candidate they want wins, other wise they want to topple the government and install their choice.
You berate others on their blogs for refusing to face the facts but here you refuse for some reason.
Yes, Kennedy put forces and advisors in there to help that rotten regime that you so deride. He did nothing to ameliorate the situation. And he did this BECAUSE the stated policy of the West to control the spread of Communism. I'm not saying that this was right or wrong. I'm just objecting to the fact that you want to lay the total blame on Eisenhower and let all the Democrats off the hook. LBJ has more blood on his hands and conscience than practically any President in history and nothing, NOTHING, from you. Doesn't sound too fair to me. "I will never send American boys to do the fighting that Asian boys should be doing themselves." What a frigging liar.
Look, I am in no way giving carte blanche support to American foreign policy over the years. If you know anything about my writings, you'll know that I've frequently cited our installation of the Shah in Iran as one of the prime movers to the chaos that's long been erupting. And, yes, I have also been against this war FROM DAY ONE. To the point, frankly, where I thought Obama should have shown the courage that Paul and Kucinich did by actually voting against the funding (eyeing a run for the Presidency, was he?). Pinochet? He was a frigging pig. So, no, you've got nothing there, pal, with these red herrings. And it was Truman who started this slippery-slope by aiding the French initially. Eisenhower only inherited it.
Sorry BUT Eisenhower did not inherit the blocking of elections AFTER the French lost and pulled out of Indochina, that is just dishonest.
He did not inherit the creation of SEATO, he helped create it which enabled his underlings like John Foster Dulles, Alan Dulles and Richard Nixon to force the next administration to follow their plans even if Nixon lost in 1960.
Eisenhower had the chance to allow real democracy in Vietnam but chose to force the American choice on the South Vietnamese, just like his administration forced the SHAH and the CIA trained SAVAK on the Iranian people.
And in 1963 when John Kennedy saw what was happening in Vietnam he had started to order the withdrawal of US forces, the order for the first 1000 troops was signed the fall of 1963, and if he hadn't been assassinated he would have withdrawn US forces and left Diem to his own devices long before the full US take over began.
As for LBJ I agree with you, he never thought it through, and had to know Kennedy's thinking on the matter, which means he is responsible for the mess he created.
My main point still remains, if Eisenhower hadn't allowed the Vietnam and Iran fiascoes to begin by refusing to stand up for democracy in the mid 1950's quite a lot of the troubles of the 60's 70's and beyond could have been avoided.
He failed there, and seeing how much indigent peoples oppose occupation and oppression from his time commanding the Allied efforts including the aid to the French, Belgium and Yugoslavian resistance to the Nazis, he should have known better. he should have known how hard peoples would fight to be free.
How much they would be willing to suffer to throw off the yoke of foreign intervention, and what lengths they would go to do that.
Ike could have forced the people under him to follow the principles of freedom and democracy for all people and as a result the world would have been a little better for all and quite a bit better for the Vietnamese, Iranian people and quite a few US troops and their families.
That is my beef with Ike who other wise I see as a good president much better then LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, either Bush or Clinton. I think he really loved this country, and his military industrial speech is one of the great ones, which opens the truths of a industrial government supporting a world economic empire a little too much for most powers that be, which is why the MSM and US government usually ignores what he was saying.
Kennedy I think, originally bought the "domino theory" but by the spring and summer of 1963 could see it wasn't a war of communist aggression but a war of national liberation the third the Vietnamese peoples had fought. As a result he was making changes when he was murdered.
Our disagreements aren't that different, but you for some reason fail to realize Ike has the history to understand the people below him were not playing it straight and should have been able to see some of the consequences of what they were doing, and that those consequences could lead down disastrous paths, just like other industrial powers had in Europe a decade before.
All I'm saying is that Eisenhower did what virtually ANY American politician of his day would have done. To have allowed another Asian country to go Communist would have been devastating (perceptions of the day sometimes look foolish in retrospect). And, yes, while Kennedy may have ultimately seen the folly of American involvement, did he not support that same regime that you (with accuracy, I might add) described as vile? As for peace and love after these elections, did they not say the same things after Castro took over? Democracy and Communism, I'm not necessarily seeing a happy marriage there.
My other point was that, while Ike resisted sending trops to save the French at Diem Biem Phu, it is doubtful that other 20th century Presidents such as Wilson, Truman, and LBJ would have been able to restrain themselves. Hell, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs.
"Hell, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs."
Planned designed and pushed hard by the Dulles Brothers and Richard Nixon long before John Kennedy won.
It was NOT JFK's idea any more than WACO was Clinton or Reno's idea, all of them were planned by republican underlings during a republican administration.
I doubt that kennedy would have accepted a Bay of Pigs ops if it started from his own admin, hell LOOK at the restraint during the cuban Missile crisis, think either Bush, Reagan or Nixon could have held back Curtis Lemay like kennedy did.
Ike is the only republican I think would have resisted LeMay, George Anderson and Earle Wheeler the way Kennedy did.
I think Truman would have resisted sending in troops to help the French, he didn't even though he was sending troops to defend South Korea. It seems you forget that small fact.
Wilson comes too far back in history and and comparison lacks a good historical relevance, it would be like asking would Abe Lincoln, a question that could be asked but never answered because he never faced the world Truman, Ike and Kennedy did.
LBJ I cannot disagree he seemed to like the military action until it undid him.
Remember he tried to hold back Macarthur to keep WW3 from erupting with China.
And he probably wouldn't have committed troops in 1954 after the problems Korea created in the previous years.
That helped curtail Ike I'm sure.
Youre blaming Nixon for the Bay of Pigs. Wow, if that doesn't constitute raw partisanship. The devil made him do it, in other words. Truman wasn't President during the Diem Biem Phu incident. We obviously have a different take on what Truman would have done. As for Truman holding back MacArthur, I only said that Truman was a hawk. I never said he was apocalyptical.
And, no, I don't think that Ike would have dropped that 2nd bomb, either. At least he would have waited a few days longer. And, yes, aid to the French started under Truman. Was that not to your criteria anyway, a blunder?
The Bay of Pigs was a CIA operation which actually occurred on April 15-19 1961, less then two months after John F Kennedy took the oath of office.
All the planning took place before Kennedy became president, like this,
On March 17, 1960, the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration agreed to a recommendation from the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, to equip and drill Cuban exiles for action against the new government of Fidel Castro.
The CIA was the primary operator, which means Alan Dulles was the guiding hand behind it. The CIA was initially confident it was capable of overthrowing Castro, having experience assisting in the overthrow of other foreign governments such as the government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in 1954. Richard Mervin Bissell, Jr., one of Allen Dulles' three aides, was made director of Operation Zapata, the CIA's codename for the operation. Throughout 1960, the growing ranks of Brigade 2506 trained throughout southern Florida and in Guatemala for the beach landing and possible mountain retreat.
As for my assertion it was Nixon who had his hands in the bay of pigs,
Eisenhower had suffered several strokes and a heart attack. He was partially immobilized, and entrusted a major share of the coordination of clandestine activities being conducted by the CIA against the "Red Menace" to Richard Nixon, his vice president. While Ike was warning against the military-industrial-complex's domestic influence, and attempting to move toward detente with the Soviets through a summit meeting, he was being sabotaged by the plans section of the CIA and by Richard Nixon.
As for the second atomic bomb being dropped on Nagasiki, that is a rather juvenile question, because Ike never faced a decision to drop a second bomb in the time of war, because the only time the US had chosen to do so was 1945 and Ike was still finishing up in Europe.
he said he was against it, but not sitting in the office and facing all the facts truman did you will never know what his decision would have been.
The 1945 version of Ike probably wouldn't have agreed to over throw Iran, Vietnam, attack Cuba either but he did.
Hell the 1921 version of Truman was a member of the KKK but the 1948 version integrated the US Military, so people change with the circumstances they face, and how they grow over time.
He still could have stopped it. He didn't because he was just as obsessed with Castro as Nixon was. In fact, Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon on stopping Communism in the 1960 election. This is like blaming Clinton for 9/11. Look, this is all speculation, what this or that person would have done. All I know is that a lot less soldiers got killed under Eisenhower than most of the 20th century Democratic Presidents (yes, Wilson counts tn that WW1 isn't exactly ancient history). As for the 2nd bomb, can you imagine the outcry that still would be occurring if a Repubican had dropped it? Hey, maybe Herbert Hoover put the plan in to motion for that one. Let's blame him!!
"Hey, maybe Herbert Hoover put the plan in to motion for that one. Let's blame him!!"
When you become this brain dead any rational argument seems hopeless.
You seem to hate democrats for some reason and refuse to accept that during the Eisenhower the seeds of the foreign policy disasters were laid.
Your claims to be non-partisan fails here.
The French lost and left Vietnam, we could have accepted that.
No need to force an dictator on the people of the south, then push hard enough for the war between the Viet Cong and South Vietnam to begin in 1959. (their designation).
Iran could have kept their democratically government, no ayatolah, no screeching for a war with Iran today.
Both would have been much preferable to what the underlings in the Eisenhower Admin decided to do.
We wouldn't have had a SEATO treaty for Kennedy to try to uphold.
The very same people were backing Batista in Cuba at the behest of the mafia and their large operations there until that ended with the coming of Castro.
Had the Dulles brothers ET Al cared a little more about democracy then fulfilling the wishes of the moneyed backers of the GOP people who filled their coffers world history could have gone far different.
Hell the reason they reached out to Eisenhower in the first place was no republican politician circa 1952 was acceptable to the US and their only hope was a popular war hero to recapture the white house back then.
If Ike had turned them down the GOP brand would have been as destroyed as it at the moment.
I don't hate Democrats, only those that worship them. The Hoover line was a joke, hyperbole I derived from YOUR partisanship. John F. Kennedy was the President of the United States. If he thought the Bay of Pigs was a bad idea, he could/should have stopped it. He didn't. If he thought the leaders in South Vietnam were worse than Ho Chi Minh (now there's a frigging blood-thirsty bastard for you), he should have immediately suspended aid to them. He didn't (and, no, don't give me that what he was going to do stuff). Look, I know that Kennedy is a God to many people but let's get real here.
"let's get real here."
Sorry but you failed that test many, many posts ago.
BTW with a sitting treaty John F Kennedy couldn't just cut all ties and aid.
That was the reason the Dulles brothers made sure there was a treaty with a country they created out of whole cloth.
Remember the SEATO treaty?
The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), was an international organization for collective defense created by the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty or the Manila Pact, which was signed on September 8, 1954. The formal institution of SEATO was established at a meeting of treaty partners in Bangkok in February 1955. It was primarily created to block further Communist gains in Southeast Asia. The organization's headquarters was located in Bangkok, Thailand. SEATO was dissolved on June 30, 1977.
President Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (1953-1959)was the primary force behind the creation of SEATO, which expanded the concept of anti-communist collective defense to Southeast Asia.
I wonder why they dissolved SEATO in 1977, communism in South East Asia didn't end, just the US creation in South East Asia did.
SEATO was all about South Vietnam, not communism.
SEATO is sort of like what Bush is trying to do with the government in Iraq he installed most Iraqis do not seem to like, (other wise they wouldn't have the resistance they do). However he knows the US senate will not tie the US to Iraq like the Dulles brothers got the US senate back in the 1950's to tie the US to the country they created.
But a dishonest commenter who posts half truths would never admit that.
Seems to be what your doing here.
So, all that anti-Communist bravado/rhetoric during the 1960 campaign was that and that alone? What a guy. And what are you bring ing up Iraq for. NOBODY has been a bigger critic of this war that I have been (check my archives, dozens of critiques). Trying to tie me to Bush, that just doesn't cut it around here, pal. Oh, and as for the Bay of Pigs, I suppose we had a treaty for that, too, huh?
The SEATO treaty mandated that WE, the United States, provide aid to the south? And the SEATO didn't dissolve until 1977? Wow, so we totally broke the treaty when we pulled the plug back in 74-75. And McGovern(72) and McCarthy(68), they actually wanted to break the treaty earlier than that. Kennedy's hands were tied, give me a break. It's like, why can't you just admit it, Kennedy hated the Communists. There's nothing wrong with admitting that.
As for Ho Chi Minh, he was one of the most despicable human beings who ever lived. He tortured/starved/slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people for no other reason than they simply owned some land. And millions of others fled for fear of a similar fate. Are you seriously trying to tell me that this was the fellow who was going to bring democracy to Vietnam? I don't know, he sure as hell doesn't pass the Obama test. I know what you're going to say, BTW, he did it only because the Dulles brothers pissed him off. It was our fault.
As for what Eisenhower did in 1954-1956 being right or wrong, I don't know, a case can be made either way. In my opinion, however, if Truman was President then, he (he, being a virulent anti-Communist and all) would have done ALL of that and then some. And, yes, the moves (by LBJ and Nixon) that happened after Ike left in 1960 were far, FAR, worse. That's a fact, Jack.
Oh, and for the record, pal, in the eight Presidential elections that I've voted in, I've only voted Republican twice (never for Bush). I've either voted for the Democrat or a third party candidate. There, try and call me a partisan now. I dare you.
Your a partisan, because you mindlessly defend a tragic mistake by Eisenhower when he listen to the far right wing Dulles brothers, and refuse to admit if they hadn't high-jacked US policy for their own ends a large chunk of US and world history in the second half of the twentieth century would have been different.
All Eisenhower had to do is accept the French lost just like France did, and things for the US and even the Vietnamese people the next two decades would have gone much better then they did, but for some reason you refuse to do so.
By the way remember both Dulles Brothers were instrumental in helping Prescott Bush and Avril Harriman (among other right wing American industrialists like Edison, John D Rockefeller, before his death and Henry Ford) finance the rise of Adolph Hitler. the Dulles brothers especially Alan helped hide Fritz Thyssen's money after WW2, some of which he owed Prescott Bush, George Herbert Walker. How they became Secretary of State (John) and Director of the CIA (Alan) under Eisenhower still marvels me.
Maybe you might now understand why I despise those two traitors and the damage they did to this country before and after WW2.
Only a partisan would defend them.
I personally believe they bamboozled Ike, especially after his stroke and second heart attack, but Harry Truman said it best,
"The Buck Stops Here" (in the oval office, at least until George W Bush was handed the office by the supreme court.)
Alan Dulles worked with brother John Foster Dulles, as lawyer and international finance specialist for Sullivan & Cromwell, a Wall Street law firm in New York (1927-1941). While there, he worked with top Nazi industrialists and played a pivotal role in promoting U.S.-Nazi corporate relations.
Allen worked with Prescott Bush (grandfather of President George Walker Bush) and George Herbert Walker (Prescott's father-in-law) who ran Union Banking Corporation for the Nazis.
Allen was legal counsel for Standard Oil and the Nazi's I. G. Farben, co-owned by the Rockefellers. (Other U.S. millionaires allied to the Nazis were: William Randolph Hearst Sr., Andrew Mellon, Irenee du Pont, Henry Ford and J.P. Morgan. Morgan, du Pont and others were even involved in a Fascist plot to overthrow the U.S. government in 1934.)
Some Dulles-linked firms, like Bush's Union Banking Corp., were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act (1942)
Berne station chief, Office of Strategic Services (1942-1945). Roosevelt's plan to charge Dulles with treason failed when Dulles was warned and covered his tracks (1944). Roosevelt's plan died with him (1945).
As OSS station chief in Berlin, Dulles negotiated the agreement with General Reinhard Gehlen to establish a Nazi spy network within the OSS (1945).
Dulles helped in the development of the CIA (1947), became its deputy director (1951) and its director (1953-1961). He oversaw numerous covert operations, such as election rigging in Italy (1948), coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) and many other notorious operations described in this issue.
When Union Banking Corp. was liquidated, Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker received $1.5 million (1951) the money Thyssen owed them.
Everything would have gone much better, huh? Ho Chi Minh was Stalin and Mao on a smaller scale, a bloodthirsty miserable bastard if ever there was one. Look, if you had read my last post, you'd know, I PERSONALLY would have stayed out completely of that region. I think it was a mistake to have anything to do with Vietnam. My only point was that what Ike did made sense for the time and no doubt would have been done by virtually any other politician of the day.
If Kennedy and the Democratic congress had thought that this treaty was not in America's best interests, they could have abgrogated it. Believe me, it wouldn't have been the first time America "changed its mind". Talk about letting somebody off the hook.
Kennedy was doing something about it, withdrawing US troops, but for some reason just like Bill O'Rielly you ignore evidence you don't like.
It seems you have absorbed his meme.
So, he did break the treaty. Good for him.
This, I'm saying, in that, before, you said that the treaty had bound him. You see, I do listen and, yes, when I see inconsistencies, I cite them.
No he didn't "break the treaty" as NO request for troops was made under the Treaty in either the Eisenhower or Kennedy administration, why do you do the best Bill O'Rielly you can and keep making things up instead of checking the facts?
This is what you orginally said;
"he should have immediately suspended aid to them."
Which the treaty required.
All I said was Kennedy was withdrawing US troops.
Damn you nothing but a Bill O'Rielly clone claiming you aren't.
O.K., so he didn't break the treaty. But he should have, though, right, if it was in America's best interests? And, yes, he withdrew American military personnel....but only after having increased them in 61 and 62. Now who's ignoring facts, Bill? Kind of like you ignore the brutality of Ho Chi Minh.
But he should have, though, right, if it was in America's best interests?
That is part of your and O'Rielly's big problem. You both want to tell everyone what to do.
Post a Comment