JFK: WHAT RESONANCE Does He HAVE to People 40 YEARS Old and YOUNGER? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-25-2011, 10:55 AM   #31
Refugee
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: die for you baby, DIVE for you baby!
Posts: 1,480
Local Time: 06:32 PM
true dat
__________________

__________________
canedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 12:34 PM   #32
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
I associate JFK and his speeches with a time when post WWII America still aspired to be great, instead of the business / political interest smash and grab that it is today.

All of that passed on with Nixon and Vietnam as we were reminded as a nation how shitty many people are. What's there to be happy about on a grand scale since the moon race and civil rights movement, besides an isolated pocket of brilliance (Silicon Valley) and the Soviet Union collapsing under its own ridiculous, groaning weight.
JFK was committed to the Truman Doctrine and reversed several of the policies of the Eisenhower administration which had cut back on the containment policies of Truman.

JFK ended the Eisenhower adminstrations policies of "massive retaliation" in response to any Soviet attack including a conventional attack anywhere in Europe or the US containment belt around the Soviet Union. JFK knew that such a threat was not credible especially with the Soviets now catching up to the United States in Nuclear capability. Once the Soviets achieved Nuclear parity with the USA (around 1970), a policy of "massive retaliation" with nuclear weapons to any conflict would essentially be suicide.

JFK adopted the policy of Flexible Response, in which conventional attacks against US interest around the world would be responded to with conventional weapons and forces, not an immediate massive response with nuclear weapons. This meant of course that spending on conventional weapons and the size of the military would have to be increased. There would be no savings as Eisenhower had envisioned from just using Nuclear Weapons as opposed to paying for troops and the equipment they needed.

So JFK increased the conventional military capabilities of the United States in order to better deter a Soviet breech of the containment belt, because the threat of "massive retaliation" to a conventional attack was becoming less credible every year as the Soviets got closer to nuclear parity with the United States. JFK's policy of Flexible Response remains in place today, 20 years after the end of the Cold War.

JFK developed US special forces and started the peace corp as he found both would be important elements in third world development as well as combating Soviet supported insurgencies around the world.

JFK was right to increase US aid to South Vietnam to protect it from Soviet supported North Vietnamese attacks. It is a tragedy that the United States essentially abandoned South Vietnam after 1972 and let it be overrun and raped by the North Vietnamese. The blame for this tragedy is on the 1973 Democratic led congress which ended all funding for US military operations in South East Asia as well as heavily reducing aid to the country of South Vietnam which severely crippled its ability to defend itself from invasion from North Vietnam.

JFK was a true cold warrior and in that sense, he was much more in line with today's Republican Party than the Democratic Party of today. JFK's Democratic Party died after 1968. After that point, the party was rapidly taken over by liberals and pacifict who had views that were the opposite of JFK.

The United States leaned back heavily towards the polices of JFK in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. US military strength was restored under Reagan and the Soviet Union collapsed from the weight of the Cold War containment policy which was started under Turman in 1947 and continued under each President since then, but to a heavier degree under Kennedy and Reagan.

Kennedy indeed was a great President who understood better than most, the importance of US Defense Spending and military intervention around the world to stop the spread of Soviet supported Communism as well as protecting US global security interest.
__________________

__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 12:48 PM   #33
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
I'm really struggling to think of one thing Jack Kennedy did other than be youngish and handsome-ish. Johnson was an infinitely greater, albeit deeply flawed, president. Vietnam destroyed his presidency and it would have done the same to Kennedy's, had he lived.
Kennedy would have been better at fighting the war in Vietnam and would not have reduced Pacification efforts like Johnson did. This would have bolstered the strength of South Vietnam and allowed the United States to achieve more with a smaller military force and less casualties. Also, unlike Johnson, Kennedy would not be thinking about getting re-elected after 1964 since it would have been is last term in office due to term limits.

As I have said above Kennedy move the United States away from the "containment light" years of the Eisenhower administration and moved it back to what it was under Truman. Conventional defense spending was heavily increased, and Kennedy ended Eisenhower's strategy of "massive retaliation" and replaced it with "flexible response" which is still in use today.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 01:01 PM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Inclined to agree, though many historians doubt Kennedy would've gotten us into the level of involvement in Vietnam that Johnson did; Kennedy recognized how unpopular our presence was in the region and had no hope that would change, while Johnson regarded Kennedy's trepidation as weakness (despite agreeing, at the time, that this was primarily 'Asia's war to fight'), and the two men often clashed over it.
On the contrary, US intervention in South East Asia was popular in the early 1960s. Strong opposition to US intervention in Vietnam did not occur until 1966/1967 and did not become a majority of the population until after February 1968.

Kennedy was committed to the Truman doctrine more heavily the Eisenhower had been and increased US involvement in South Vietnam from 700 advisors in January 1960, to over 17,000 military personal in South Vietnam in November of 1963.

There is absolutely no evidence that Kennedy would have allowed a Soviet supported communist movement to overrun South Vietnam. Kennedy was commited to the Truman doctrine and even Eisenhower advised by the mid-60s that the United States needed to increase its involvment in South Vietnam to prevent a communist take over.

I don't recall Kennedy and Johnson fighting over Vietnam. Is there a taped conversation that shows that, or is this just a 2nd hand alegation?
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 01:05 PM   #35
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Any examples of Lennon or JFK that would make them a conservative?
Well, for JFK, he believed in heavy defense spending and foreign military intervention abroad that was required by the Truman Doctrine, which puts him closer to todays Republicans than to Democrats.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 03:33 PM   #36
Refugee
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: die for you baby, DIVE for you baby!
Posts: 1,480
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post

Kennedy indeed was a great President who understood better than most, the importance of US Defense Spending and military intervention around the world to stop the spread of Soviet supported Communism as well as protecting US global security interest.
And obviously the best way to deter social community or "The Reds" as you call it in the US is to go and torch innocent villagers in very distant lands in front of their families.

Bravo America!
__________________
canedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 03:36 PM   #37
Refugee
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: die for you baby, DIVE for you baby!
Posts: 1,480
Local Time: 06:32 PM
You forgot to mention Eisenhowers warning of "growing military-industrial complex."

Wouldn't want defense spending to spiral so out of control that it strangles the social growth of the homeland.
__________________
canedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 04:41 PM   #38
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono

Well, for JFK, he believed in heavy defense spending and foreign military intervention abroad that was required by the Truman Doctrine, which puts him closer to todays Republicans than to Democrats.
Context is key my friend.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 07:40 PM   #39
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by canedge View Post
And obviously the best way to deter social community or "The Reds" as you call it in the US is to go and torch innocent villagers in very distant lands in front of their families.

Bravo America!
Well, that is the stereotype that many non-US citizens and liberal US citizens like to promote and believe. But it is false, no matter how much they enjoy and cling to such beliefs. The United States saved the world from communism and World War III.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 07:45 PM   #40
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by canedge View Post
You forgot to mention Eisenhowers warning of "growing military-industrial complex."

Wouldn't want defense spending to spiral so out of control that it strangles the social growth of the homeland.
Good point! Another area where Eisenhower got it wrong. Eisenhower was a great General and its good thing he won the Republican nomination for President in 1952, because the challenger would have withdrew the United States from NATO and thrown the Truman doctrine in the trash. Eisenhower believed in containment, just a lighter form of it. Eisenhower did not have the long range vision of Kennedy though, nor the understanding of US peacetime strength and its ability to win the Cold War with the Soviets.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 07:47 PM   #41
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Context is key my friend.
It certainly is, but Kennedy would not be blind to todays US security needs unlike many Democrats.
__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 08:13 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
Well, that is the stereotype that many non-US citizens and liberal US citizens like to promote and believe. But it is false, no matter how much they enjoy and cling to such beliefs. The United States saved the world from communism and World War III.
Wow. A talking amoeba. Darwin is so pissed right now.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 08:38 PM   #43
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono

It certainly is, but Kennedy would not be blind to todays US security needs unlike many Democrats.
Come on Sting, let's not pretend we know what the thoughts and beliefs of the late would be.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2011, 11:51 AM   #44
Refugee
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: die for you baby, DIVE for you baby!
Posts: 1,480
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
The United States saved the world from communism and World War III.
There is more fantasy in that comment than a J.K. Rowling novel. But as long as it serves personal self-interest than why change right?
__________________
canedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2011, 02:39 PM   #45
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by canedge View Post
There is more fantasy in that comment than a J.K. Rowling novel. But as long as it serves personal self-interest than why change right?
The Truman Doctrine worked. The United States successfully detered the Soviets around the world, especially a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. So, nope, no fantasy there.
__________________

__________________
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com