Yes, but "US Advisors" grew exponentially under Kennedy. We were at war under Johnson.
Troops returning
- Thread starter omegapoint
- Start date
We're into, not a dimes worth of difference between the parties territory where starting wars is concerned. Democrats are no less
subject to protecting our oligarchs property whenever the socialist bugaboo threatens. Eisenhower ordered CIA chief Dulles to eliminate Patrice Lumumba, the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Republic of the Congo after they gained independance from Belgium. His body was cut up into pieces and had acid poured over it so as to not have any trace of his remains.
They name airports after our assassins.
subject to protecting our oligarchs property whenever the socialist bugaboo threatens. Eisenhower ordered CIA chief Dulles to eliminate Patrice Lumumba, the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Republic of the Congo after they gained independance from Belgium. His body was cut up into pieces and had acid poured over it so as to not have any trace of his remains.
They name airports after our assassins.
Vietnam War History
A few US military advisors arrived in Vietnam beginning in 1950, as the French were leaving. But U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, under JFK (smarting from the Bay Of Pigs disaster), with U.S. troop levels rising a lot in 1961 and tripling again in 1962. U.S. involvement continued to rise as more and more combat units were deployed beginning in 1965, under LBJ. RMN tried a few dirty tricks too, but he was essentially trying to get out, which he did. Not a very belligerent leader, China was more important to him.
A few US military advisors arrived in Vietnam beginning in 1950, as the French were leaving. But U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, under JFK (smarting from the Bay Of Pigs disaster), with U.S. troop levels rising a lot in 1961 and tripling again in 1962. U.S. involvement continued to rise as more and more combat units were deployed beginning in 1965, under LBJ. RMN tried a few dirty tricks too, but he was essentially trying to get out, which he did. Not a very belligerent leader, China was more important to him.
I know Eisenhower was a republican but since his name was brought up it reminded me of that.
There is a curious alignment of US foreign policy regardless of which party is in power. But that's really only curious until you become aware of the common, causative factor. For that, read Chomsky. Imho Chomsky gives the supported explanation that incorporates (no pun) the most and satisfies the Occam's Razor test.
I've been reading Chomsky since Manufacturing Consent, decades ago. There isn't anyone better informed and understands to the bedrock what animates global power than Chomsky. Most everyone else doesn't approach his objectivity.
If I recall he denied that label I forget why. But I can't elaborate any more than what you probably already know. Decentralized power and decision making structures to government, worker owned industry with voting in place of hierarchal management authority. And it does resemble libertarianism in its hope to
spread out authority but with a sense towards containing social
hegemonies that a less conscientious platform might not.
spread out authority but with a sense towards containing social
hegemonies that a less conscientious platform might not.