Well you seem to be the geopolitical genius...you figure it out. It may have something to do with taking over from the French in "Indochina" (as it used to be called) during the Eisenhower years and the whole of South East Asia being far more strategically valuable and significant than the squalid little island off the Florida coast. Millions of Vietnamese and their Chinese sponsors were involved in a war that had been going on since the 1940's and the stakes were simply vastly higher than in Cuba and that's where our Cold War interests had to be. But you knew all that....right? Of course you did.
I did. Your theory is stupid. The tourism dollars alone outweighed the petroleum concerns in the 1960's and 1970's. I think the problem with conspriacy theorists is that they become rote deciples of their long disproven theories and are chained to the present day politics because they are either ignorant of the politics of the time or ignorant of the details. In 1963-1973; petroleum was on nobody's radar. But it's nice to see you abandon the "war hawk" premise so easily. Do "war hawks" generally care where the war is? No. The one thing they have historically cared about is the ease of persecuting the war. Which again, blows the theory of the JFK murder out of the water. No invasion of Cuba=no "war hawks" being responsible. Yeah...so? "Sponsors"? Uh...okay. Sponsors. If anyone knows what in the heck this guy means by the "millions" of sponsors, please enlighten us and why the "war hawks" cared about them. I have to admit the "chinese sponsors" is something new to me and most other people. Othere than that, I've forgotten more on the topic than you'll ever know.
Oh...so painful considering the sourrce. The dumbest thing I've ever heard. A complete fantastic claim pulled straight from your ass. But a few Mafia controlled casinos were? Good to see you've equated Vietnam and petroleum somehow, as if that were the only thing being fought over but that's how deep thinkers like you roll. Abandoned it how? When? In what possible way? You don't even have a cogent rational argument of your own so I guess your only way of "winning" is to lie about my positions. Kennedy was preparing to get out of Vietnam. When LBJ and his friends took over one of his first moves was to not only cancel Kennedy's plans but to greatly expand our role in Vietnam. You simply don't have a clue. Not a single clue! Sorry a simple synonym for "allies" threw you for a loop. I forgot how fragile and easily derailed your train of thought was. Sorry to confuse you so much. As far as knowing more than I do you don't know more than anyone in this thread, with the possible exception of your ideological twin, S. Nazi. Your claim is laughable and the mark of a buffoon.
[/quote][/QUOTE] Kennedy was not preparing to pull out of Vietnam and LBJ merely continued with police which kennedy initiated
http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/1963_Vietnam_Withdrawal_Plans.html Fools who will deny the large exit wound in the back of the president's skull (thereby ending the fantasy of Oswald the lone assassin), as if it just didn't exist will also will try to deny Kennedy's proposed draw down and withdrawal from Vietnam despite documents like NSAM 263. Kennedy's death signaled the massive escalation of our war in Vietnam That's just fact.
It was a large wound not an EXIT wound. Oswald was the shooter and that is proven by evidence which is something your delusional theory is lacking. NSAM was prepared for KENNEDY under his direction it was signed by LBJ after kennedy's death but still Kennedy's initiative. That is fact destroying your claim
And when the rooster crows in the morning, the bird is responsible for the sunrise? The ramp-up had started long before (by Kennedy). Nobody knows for sure what would have happened. But its very strange that the supposed “war hawks” were eager for war but ignored the primary player in the Cuban missile crisis (CUBA) from a matter of months earlier. Would be much like your wife cheating on you and instead of punching the lights out of the guy she just slept with, you go after the kid she dated in high school.
Actually Kenndy WAS going to pull out and a plan was in place to begin doing that only one month after his assasination https://www.thenation.com/article/jfks-vietnam-withdrawal-plan-fact-not-speculation/
Hmmm...you reasoning and logic seems so wise And yet, we stepped up our involvement under LBJ and all those Cold War hawks and engaged in a major war in Southeast Asia while Cuba became a permanent back burner issue never to arise again. And that "ramp-up" you refer to is a fiction of your own ignorance as NASM 263 shows otherwise. https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/w6LJoSnW4UehkaH9Ip5IAA.aspx How is drawing down our troop strength by 1,000 by the end of '63 (and a plan to withdraw completely by '65, assuming all went well) "ramping-up" anything? Duhhh.... Only someone extra special dim would argue with history and insist he knows better. But that's the comedic touch you bring to things. And you never seem to learn a thing! Thanks.
That is still someone’s opinion. It’s an enlightened viewpoint but at it’s base, it is still the author’s opinion.
Total nonsense. We almost went to war over Cuba a few months earlier… It was not a “back burner issue”
Tell me, smart guy...when was Cuba, after the missile crisis, anything but a back burner issue? There was the Mariel boat people issue under Carter, which lasted a few months, but it was hardly comparable to Vietnam. How absurd can you be?
It was a big deal. People were PISSED that we had a communist nation 90 miles off our shore. I'm old enough to remember
Is that directed at me? The "reply" function is there for a reason. Was Cuba a "big deal"? Yeah. Was it as big as the Vietnam war? Hell no! If Cuba was like a long festering toothache Vietnam was like a case of mouth cancer. Does it make ANY sense that Cold War hawks were not behind the Kennedy coup because if they were, so the ignorant theory goes, we would have invaded Cuba and taken out Castro (instead of ramping-up a full blown war in Vietnam under LBJ)? Only to a know nothing fool, I guess. The bungled invasion of Cuba by a renegade CIA led army in '61, partially due to JFK and his refusal to use US air power in support an invasion he was not fully informed of led to his vow to take on the CIA (which sealed his demise in Dallas) and the apex of our obsession with Cuba was in the next year when reconnaissance photos detected Soviet missiles which were installed in Cuba. Ironically it was those missiles, and Kennedy facing down the Soviets over it, that led to a partial thaw in US-Soviet relations when Khrushchev removed the missiles and the US and Russia established a line of communication between the two for the first time. And much to the consternation of the Cold War hawks Kennedy began looking for ways to dial down the festering hate between the two empires (NASM 263 is proof of that). That sealed his fate and that's why I don't buy the story that the Mafia was the driving force behind his assassination. A factor, yes. But a determining one? No.
That didn't take too long to change. Americans weren't being sent to Cuba to fight and die in a war. After the missile crisis things changed a lot!
