JFK's Influence on the 1963 Election

[Michael Hardner]

How do you measure such things? Canada made billions on the Vietnam war. The Americans continued the Cold War which the "West" eventually won.

Ok, so Canada made billions from the US. The US eventually won the cold war, but Vietnam doesn`t seem to be a key turning point, like Afghanistan or SDI was.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, so Canada made billions from the US. The US eventually won the cold war, but Vietnam doesn`t seem to be a key turning point, like Afghanistan or SDI was.

Not so, as Vietnam was the nexus for American policy in the Pacific after consolidation of Japan, Philippines and South Korea. Vietnam was originally a French joint.

[Sir Bandelot]

I look at it as a much better use for fellows like Jim Chamberlain. But then, I'm often accused of being too close to you Yankee devils. Married one of you n' all...

What a good dog... he even licks the hand

[Michael Hardner]

Not so, as Vietnam was the nexus for American policy in the Pacific after consolidation of Japan, Philippines and South Korea. Vietnam was originally a French joint.

So how was it a turning point ? Was it a setback for the west ? Doesn't seem like much of one anyway.

[bush_cheney2004]

So how was it a turning point ? Was it a setback for the west ? Doesn't seem like much of one anyway.

The Vietnam War was a proxy battle in a much larger context of a containment strategy. To that end the "west" has been largely successful, with China now on-side economically and a nonexistent Soviet Union. Vietnam, unfinished business from WW2, figures into that narrative just like any other aspect or proxy battle of the Cold War.

[jbg]

If JFK was "mafia trash," then I wish the mafia would field more candidates

He was one of the greatest, and most inspirational leaders in human history. Men like JFK give people at least a modicum of hope for the deeper decency of mankind. Het set a high bar on what we should expect from those who would rule us.

Tim

Frankly, I think he was a second-rate president. Certainly not among the worst, but hardly at the top of the list. The guy he beat in the 1960 election, warts in all, was ultimately a much greater president. Hell, LBJ ultimately accomplished more then Kennedy.

I think that he was not a good President at all. I think his "accomplishments" such as the Test Ban Treaty amounted to cave-ins. One of his cardinal sins was to attend the Khruschev (sp) summit totally unprepared.

Even to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis he had to pledge to remove missiles from Turkey ten years hence.

His image created an atmosphere of hope and excitement, much like Obama. His accomplishment record is similarly slender.

[jbg]

Frankly, I think he was a second-rate president. Certainly not among the worst, but hardly at the top of the list. The guy he beat in the 1960 election, warts in all, was ultimately a much greater president. Hell, LBJ ultimately accomplished more then Kennedy.

I answered this separately to discuss the man Kennedy beat, Nixon. Nixon was one of our worst Presidents. He had a paranoid personality and was basically a thug.

His "accomplishments" consisted of caving in to Peoples' Republic of China's and USSR's demands and getting nothing in return. He did this with almost the sole goal of an overwhelming victory in the 1972 elections.

Towards that goal he pursued "banana republic" economic policies during 1971 and 1972, which led to the hyperinflation, energy shortages, and ultimately recession of 1973-4 and 1974-5.

And I still don't understand why Vietnam was so important. The country was lost to the communists anyway, and what was the result ?

As far as Viet Nam, he gave us the worst of both worlds; deep domestic divisions caused by his continuation of a failed war, and then gaining the U.S. a reputation as an unreliable ally. He should have found a way to rapidly extricate us from the War during 1969. He could have made clear that in the scheme of things Viet Nam just didn't matter, but he would stick by allies that either had deep historical connections to the U.S. (i.e. Australia, Canada and the U.K.) or real strategic importance (i.e. Japan, Western Europe, the Middle East).

The Viet Nam war was wrong, financially, politically and morally. Nixon waited to wind it down until the runup to the 1972 election.

Edited November 1, 2010 by jbg

[August1991]

Yes, we're all aware of the conventional pieties, rendered true solely because they were blandly stated....and still are, by the America-is-Always-Right crowd of historical revisionists. Also known as moral relativists and folks who embrace nationalism for the religion it actually is.

Because of America, the world is a better place. Imagine the world without America. As John Howard said in a similar context, "Be careful. You may just get what you wish for."

What isn't a series of bland platitudes about Good versus Evil is the Pentagon Papers--solid and indisputable proof that officials were lying their way throughout the entire war of aggression.

The Pentagon Papers were largely about how the US military bungled the war. Daniel Elsberg interpreted them to mean, as you seem to do, that America was on the Evil side.

"War of agression"? America had no desire to occupy Vietnam any more than it wants to occupy Canada. If America was an aggressive country, it would long ago have colonized and occupied Canada - or at least meddled in our politics. It hasn't. Quebec has held two referendums on independence without evident US intervention. (Clinton said he favoured Canadian union. Carter gave Trudeau speaking time to the US Congress.)

And I still don't understand why Vietnam was so important. The country was lost to the communists anyway, and what was the result ?

It mattered.

It took about two decades for the Communists to finally take South Vietnam. They first got North Vietnam in 1954. They got South Vietnam in 1975. For these two decades, America showed its resolve. Ultimately, America and its western allies defeated communism. The war in Vietnam made this ultimate victory possible.

If I compare to World War II, Dunkerque was a defeat for the Allies but evidence of its resolve. The Russian campaign of Napoleon is perhaps a better example: he won the battle but lost the war.

Even to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis he had to pledge to remove missiles from Turkey ten years hence.

This is a key fact. Kennedy agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey, and then he kept his side in the bargain. Was he right to do that?

How to deal with psychopathic criminals who become Head of State?

Maybe Reagan had the right approach. Never talk to them.

Edited November 2, 2010 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

How to deal with psychopathic criminals who become Head of State?

Was Khrushchev a psychopathic criminal? Sure, he wasn't a nice guy, but compared to Stalin, he was the frickin' Angel Gabriel.

Maybe Reagan had the right approach. Never talk to them.

And in the end Reagan talked to them.

[jbg]

Even to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis he had to pledge to remove missiles from Turkey ten years hence.

This is a key fact. Kennedy agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey, and then he kept his side in the bargain. Was he right to do that?

Kennedy didn't. He was dead by then. Nixon did. Even people as mentally diseased as Nixon, in democracies, honor past deals made by earlier Presidents, however poorly advised.

How to deal with psychopathic criminals who become Head of State?

Was Khrushchev a psychopathic criminal? Sure, he wasn't a nice guy, but compared to Stalin, he was the frickin' Angel Gabriel.

Maybe Reagan had the right approach. Never talk to them.

Khruschev was better than Stalin but from all accounts quite unbalanced mentally. And there was a real risk that a later leader of the U.S.S.R. would disavow any deal made by Khruschev. As they did on some trade deals.

And in the end Reagan talked to them.

Yes. But on the basis of "trust, but verify". In other words, not to trust at all, but to deal from a position of strength.

[bloodyminded]

Because of America, the world is a better place. Imagine the world without America. As John Howard said in a similar context, "Be careful. You may just get what you wish for."

I don't wish for any such thing. This is not relevant to what we were discussing.

The Pentagon Papers were largely about how the US military bungled the war. Daniel Elsberg interpreted them to mean, as you seem to do, that America was on the Evil side.

Elsberg's "interpretation" is not important; the PP's are solid proof of the government lying to the public for the sake of war.

And I don't think there was a "good side" (ie the Northern Communists) versus an "Evil side" (the U.S.) I don't view things this way at all.

At any rate, your stance on this demands one of two dubious positions: the commissar revisionist or the anti-democratic elitist. That is, you can pretend that lies aren't lies--even when official government documents prove it--or you can take the seat of the elitists who believe the government must lie people into war For Their Own Good.

Christopher Hitchens (too honest to deny that the lies occur) took the latter stance in support of the Iraq War.

In terms of Vietnam, you seem to have taken the former approach: that 2+2=5.

"War of agression"? America had no desire to occupy Vietnam any more than it wants to occupy Canada.

No, it didn't. It wanted to ensure that the nationalist movements were crushed; It desired to stay the "domino" threat of people fulfilling an indepedent political/social course. Gangsters understand that disobedience must be dealt with harshly, where possible.

[jbg]

No, it didn't. It wanted to ensure that the nationalist movements were crushed; It desired to stay the "domino" threat of people fulfilling an indepedent political/social course. Gangsters understand that disobedience must be dealt with harshly, where possible.

Independent political courses worked out real well in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Myanmar etc. </sarcasm>

[bloodyminded]

Independent political courses worked out real well in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Myanmar etc. </sarcasm>

First of all, one could argue about just how "independent" these have been, thanks to so much meddling.

Still, I take your point.

But we have to make distinctions, I hope, between justified intervention and imperialism. Early on in the Vietnam War, American officials recognized that, were it put to a vote, the people of Vietnam would vote the "wrong" way.

(Not for the violently revolutionary Northern lads, but certainly for socialists.)

Do they simply have no "right" to do this?

At what point does such interference become unjustified? We would not tolerate it; but we expect others should...Why? Because we're wise and we know better what they should have for a system?

[Oleg Bach]

If JFK was "mafia trash," then I wish the mafia would field more candidates

He was one of the greatest, and most inspirational leaders in human history. Men like JFK give people at least a modicum of hope for the deeper decency of mankind. Het set a high bar on what we should expect from those who would rule us.

Tim

Nothing wrong with a system based on honour.

[jbg]

If JFK was "mafia trash," then I wish the mafia would field more candidates

He was one of the greatest, and most inspirational leaders in human history. Men like JFK give people at least a modicum of hope for the deeper decency of mankind. Het set a high bar on what we should expect from those who would rule us.

I know this is a Canadian political board but I must correct you here. In now way did JFK set any kind of a 'high bar' or standard at all for "the deeper decency of mankind". He was all talk, no action.

Even with regard to his so-called strong anti-Soviet policy, basically he caved in to the U.S.S.R.'s enslavement of the Cuban people and as a tradeoff to the nominal denuclearization of Cuba (not that important in a day of I.C.B.M.'s) we pulled our missiles out of Turkey. The nuclear test-ban treaty was a total giveaway to the U.S.S.R. as we were constrained to obey it by the open and democratic nature of our society but the U.S.S.R. was under no such constraint.

On civil rights, similarly, all talk, no action. His "Camelot" crew could sing and strum guitars with the best of the folk singers; it took the cynical L.B.J. (who did plenty of damage in his own right to our country) to pass civil rights, tax reduction and to actually try to fight Communism. Beyond being an adulterer J.F.K. was a sorry excuse for a human being as well as a Presient.

[Timothy17]

I know this is a Canadian political board but I must correct you here. In now way did JFK set any kind of a 'high bar' or standard at all for "the deeper decency of mankind". He was all talk, no action.

Even with regard to his so-called strong anti-Soviet policy, basically he caved in to the U.S.S.R.'s enslavement of the Cuban people and as a tradeoff to the nominal denuclearization of Cuba (not that important in a day of I.C.B.M.'s) we pulled our missiles out of Turkey. The nuclear test-ban treaty was a total giveaway to the U.S.S.R. as we were constrained to obey it by the open and democratic nature of our society but the U.S.S.R. was under no such constraint.

On civil rights, similarly, all talk, no action. His "Camelot" crew could sing and strum guitars with the best of the folk singers; it took the cynical L.B.J. (who did plenty of damage in his own right to our country) to pass civil rights, tax reduction and to actually try to fight Communism. Beyond being an adulterer J.F.K. was a sorry excuse for a human being as well as a Presient.

You already commented on my post earlier, so I'm curious why you duplicated and expanded your original post with this more aggressive one ?

You mention the missile crisis. JFK remained at his post even though he was potentially in reach of those missiles. He did not abandon his post and showed an act of solidarity with the American people who also lived under that same new threat, a threat he succesfully removed.

JFK was shot dead, so I will not hold it against him for not completing the work he wanted to do in regards to Civil Rights or speculate on who would have done a better job (whether him or LBJ).

As for your final remark (that JFK was "a sorry excuse for a human being") I will say this : I imagine you are at least in agreement with one other human being ; namely, the man who murdered him.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Timothy17

[jbg]

As for your final remark (that JFK was "a sorry excuse for a human being") I will say this : I imagine you are at least in agreement with one other human being ; namely, the man who murdered him.

That remark is at least coherent, if not based in reality.

I absolutely do not believe that.

[Bonam]

I know this is a Canadian political board but I must correct you here. In now way did JFK set any kind of a 'high bar' or standard at all for "the deeper decency of mankind". He was all talk, no action.

Even with regard to his so-called strong anti-Soviet policy, basically he caved in to the U.S.S.R.'s enslavement of the Cuban people and as a tradeoff to the nominal denuclearization of Cuba (not that important in a day of I.C.B.M.'s) we pulled our missiles out of Turkey.

Missiles out of the US's backyard in exchange for missiles out of the USSR's backyard. Seems like a fair exchange, no?

The nuclear test-ban treaty was a total giveaway to the U.S.S.R. as we were constrained to obey it by the open and democratic nature of our society but the U.S.S.R. was under no such constraint.

Both sides were constrained to obey the treaty by threat of the other side's retaliation (discontinuing their own compliance with the treaty) if it was violated.

Anyway, I liked his support for space exploration and what that resulted in. Certainly beats the hell out of Bush's "vision for space exploration" or Obama's indecisive monkeying around.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Bonam

[Oleg Bach]

Missiles out of the US's backyard in exchange for missiles out of the USSR's backyard. Seems like a fair exchange, no?

Both sides were constrained to obey the treaty by threat of the other side's retaliation (discontinuing their own compliance with the treaty) if it was violated.

Anyway, I liked his support for space exploration and what that resulted in. Certainly beats the hell out of Bush's "vision for space exploration" or Obama's indecisive monkeying around.

"Indecisive monkeying around"................sounds a little racist to me..maybe that dog eared boy that the Americans elected can be the first man to go to Mars...? BUT then PETA might show issue.

[bloodyminded]

"Indecisive monkeying around"................sounds a little racist to me.

No.

[Oleg Bach]

No.

Okay so much for that....seems that American privledged families gather up their wealth though crimminal activity - or other immoral acts that generate profit...whether it be the Bush clan or the rum running soul destroying Kennedys ....who got what they deserved through devine providence. Goes around comes around - just takes time.